THIRUVARANGAMHISTORY

Courtesy: ‘History Of Srirangam Temple’ By Sri V.N.Hari Rao

Chapter I

SOURCES

Epigraphy

The study of the history of the Srirangam temple has been renderedpossible mainly by the remarkable advance of epigraphy in South India. Anaccount based wholly on glorifying Mahatmyas and historically useless mythsand legends is bound to be incomplete, indefinite and unreal. Most of theinscriptions in the Srirangam temple have been reported on and some of themedited in the publications of the Department of Epigraphy. Though there area few Pallava inscriptions in the Trichinopoly cave and in Tiruvellarai andUyyakondan Tirumalai near Srirangam the Srirangam temple itself contains noPallava inscriptions. The earliest inscriptions are the Cola inscriptions of the10th century A.D. and of these the first is dated in the 17th year ofParantaka I (907 - 953 A.D.) These are followed by the inscriptions of thePandyas of the Second Empire. They record the numerous and richbenefactions made to the temple by these kings and are often setout in suchgreat detail that they confirm in a large measure the account in theVaisnava chronicles of the bountiful resources of the temple that lay at theback of the ceremonious conduct of worship and festivals for the GodRenganatha.

The state of prosperity enjoyed by the Srirangam temple under thepatronage of benevolentHindu monarchs received a rude shock when theMohammedans over-ran Ma’bar in the first half of the 14th century. Thetemple lost its landed property and became poor and destitute. It wasrestored with the revival of Hindu political power in South India under theleadership of Vijayanagar. The inscriptions, in the Srirangam temple, of theearly Vijayanagar chieftains paint a picture of a conscious effort on theirpart to resuscitate the shrine as the celebrated centre of Hinduism that ithad been. A large number of copper-plate grants begin to appear in theperiod of the later Vijayanagar kings and that of the Nayaks of Madurai.Most of these record the grant of villages to the wardens of the Srirangamtemple. A few inscriptions of the mid-Vijayanagar period give us importantand useful details about the governors of the Trichinopoly region and their

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a y

dealings with the Srirangam temple. By the beginning of the 18th centuryinscriptions fell into obsolescence and for the subsequent periods we dependmainly upon contemporary writings.

The inscriptions help to furnish the appropriate politicalbackground to the Vaisnava tradition, enshrined in the Guruparamparai, whichgives a continuous account of the succession of pontiffs at Srirangam. Butthe Guruparamparai belongs purely to the realm of hagiography and is not ofmuch help to the historian. However, the correlation of political and religiousdata in inscriptions is not as complete as one might wish. Direct references,in the host of inscriptions, on the walls, pillars and plinths of the Srirangamtemple, to the affairs and activities of the Vaisnava movement at Srirangamcan be counted on one’s fingers’ ends. It is surprising that Ramanuja, whoaccording to the authentic tradition of the Arayirappadi Guruparamparai,was for long (more than sixty years according to the Koil-Olugu) the managerof the affairs of the Srirangam temple, both spiritual and temporal, is notmentioned as such in any of its inscriptions. This applies also to hisimmediate predecessors and successors. Thus to all appearances we possesstwo sets of material for the reconstruction of the history of Srirangamtemple, viz., the hagiologies and the inscriptions, which have nothing incommon between them. But actually the position is not to be despaired of.The inscriptions of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries contain importantreferences, though indirect and also few and far between, to the affairsand organisation of the Srirangam temple. An inscription of Kulottunga Idated 10881 (62 of 1892; Sii. III.70.) and another of MaravarmanSundara Pandya I dated 12252 (53 of 1892; SII.IV.500.) contain suchreferences, casual in themselves and hence quite reliable. These references,for instance go to confirm the traditional account of Ramanuja’s activities inSrirangam. There are also a few inscriptions, of the same period, whichmention Srirangam, Ramanuja and a few of his immediate disciples like Embarand Accan.3 (MAR.1913. p.36; 1908. p.9.) With the help of these and afew other inscriptions it is possible to check and verify the traditionalaccount to some extent.

Generally speaking inscriptions in South India are seldompurely historical in character; they register gifts and endowments of a publicor private nature, to temples, mathas and Brahmins. As such they are ofimmense value to the history of any temple. A list of inscriptions of theSrirangam temple, arranged chronologically, presents a succinct sketch ofthe history of the property of the temple, in lands, gardens, jewels of goldand diamonds, lamps, vessels and other accoutrement for worship and finallyin gold coins. In the days of the flourishing Hindu Rajas the temple received

very frequently rich presents not only from the local chiefs but also fromtheir neighbours, who came down for the purpose of war or peace. The listof benefactors included important officers of the army, merchant-princesand private individuals. Whenever the peace of the country was violentlydisturbed the temple lost its all. When peace was restored it received freshgifts and endowments. On the establishment of the British Raj, however, itceased to be a landlord and became, like so many petty princes and Nawabs,a pensioner of the government.

The major South Indian temple was the result of a gradual process ofaccretion; the number of sub-shrines containing the images of minor deitiesand sublimated devotees clustering around the main shrine were raised indifferent periods by beneficent princes. The only source for a proper studyof the structural growth of the Srirangam temple is epigraphical. Here againa chronological list of the inscriptions in the temple furnishes a clear sketchof the physical growth of the temple. From a study of such a list it can beseen that a majority of the minor shrines were constructed in the 13thcentury, when the region round Srirangam was under the occupation of theHoysalas and after them the Pandyas of the Second Empire. It is also knownthat some of the structures that had suffered damage during the Muslimoccupation were repaired or reconstructed subsequently by the chieftains ofVijayanagar. The Koil-Olugu, which gives a detailed account of the severalstructures with the names of their builders and Saka dates, has, it isfound, drawn its information largely from inscriptions.

Over and above these, the inscriptions furnish various minor detailsuseful for the history of the temple. For example a couple of inscriptions inSrirangam supply the rare and interesting information about the transfer ofthe management of certain shrines (the Dasavatara shrine and theTirumangai Alvar Sannidhi) to new arcakas and the duties they wereexpected to perform in respect of their offices4. (100 and 102 of 1936-37) Again two inscriptions on the jambs of the Vellai gopuram in the templetell us an episode of topical interest. They give us details of the self-immolation of a few Jiyas and Ekangis of the temple, as a protest againstinsufficient allowances made by the local governor for the conduct of puja.5(87 of 1936-37; pt.II, para 78) From the inscriptions we know thatmunificent Hindu kings founded in their names festivals that continue to thisday, and established agraharas or Brahmin-habitations going by the name ofCaturvedimangalams. Such are the Bhupati Udayar festival, called afterBhupati Udayar, a chieftain of Vijayanagar of the First Dynasty andRavivarman-caturvedi-mangalam, called after the famous Ravivarman

Kulasekhara.

The Early Tamil literature and the Prabandas of the Alvars

One of the Aham odes refers to Arangam and the Panguni festival onthe banks of an adjacent river.6 (Aham 137) It is likely that this hasreference to one of the important festivals of the Srirangam temple. Aham400 or the Ahananuru is one of the oldest anothologies included in theclassical Tamil literature, better known as the Sangam works. By commonconsent this group is assigned to the same age in which Ptolemy and theanonymous author of the Periplus wrote about South India, i.e., the firsttwo or three centuries of the Christian era.7 (This period is sometimesextended so as to include the 5th century also) The Silappadikaram which isalso included in this group, refers more definitely to the Srirangam temple.

Roughly speaking the age of the Sangam literature is succeeded by theage of the historical Pallavas of Kanchi. Foe a history of the temple of thisperiod the Prabandas of the Vaisnava mystics, going by the name of theAlvars, call for special notice. All the Alvars did not belong to the same age.A few were earlier and the rest later. The early Alvars are variouslyassigned to the 2nd century and the 5th century A.D. It has to be saidthat the Prabandas of the later Alvars furnish much interesting informationabout the state of the Srirangam temple 1,200 years ago. Though thepoems contain very often idealized pictures yet they give some unfailingdetails about worship in the temple and the devotees of the god. The livesof the Alvars, as they are preserved in the hagiologies, again confirm thesereferences and furnish fresh details, though these have to be utilised withgreat caution.

The legendary Stalamahatmya

People have generally loved to ascribe a hoary antiquity and inventsacred and edifying legends to glorify the sanctity of their sacred shrines.This has led to the rise of a whole mass of literature going by the name of‘Stala Mahatmyas’ and ‘Stala Puranas’, mostly of recent origin. Though oflittle value because they bear no relation to the historical dates or eventsstill they do not lack a quaint interest for the student of folk-lore andpopular tradition. The Sriranga Mahatmya, which gives such an account ofthe Srirangam temple, is known in two varsions, viz., the ‘Satadyayi’ and the‘Dasadyayi’, or the versions of ‘hundred chapters’ and ten chapters’, said toform part respectively of the Garuda Purana and the Brahmanda Purana; andsurprisingly enough they are not to be traced in their originals. Such

apocryphal Mahatmyas are not histories, nor are they even chronicles; atbest they are local ……………. of foundation-legends cherished by the popularmind.

The Koil-Olugu

Between legend and history stands the chronicle; and to thisintermediate class is to be assigned the Koil-Olugu. The word ‘olugu’ means arecord or a register, and ‘Koil’, in Vaisnava parlance, denotes Srirangam.Genealogical accounts were, sometimes, called ‘Olugus’, e.g., the ‘AnnanTirumaligai Olugu’, which is an account of the family of the Kandadaiyar ofSrirangam.

The Koil-Olugu is stated to be the work of ‘Purvacaryas’,i.e., the Acaryas of the past’, in other words it was not the work of asingle writer belonging to a particular period but a temple record written andmaintained by successive wardens of the temple or their accountants orwriters. Events are narrated, especially in the latter portions of the Olugu,under specific dates, and a perusal of the entire book conveys the idea thatit was a diary kept up by successive generations, true to its name, ‘Olugu’.On these grounds a categorical statement that the Koil-Olugu was a latecomposition of about the 18th century cannot be taken as altogetherjustified.8 (EI. XXIV. p. 91.) It is not improbable that an original andearly cadjan existed in the Srirangam temple before the latter sufferedduring the Orissan and Muslim invasions of the medieval period. From thefact that Udayavar or Ramanuja receives the most exhaustive treatment itmay be hazarded that the Olugu was commenced after his death. Thecomparatively scrappy treatment of the earlier period strengthens this view.

The most instructive portion of the Koil-Olugu is that which treatswith the reforms of Udayavar in the temple, the foremost of them being athorough reorganization of the various groups of temple servants. Theadministration of the temple was improved and purified in manyaja respect.A five-fold division of the temple servants was expanded into a ten-folddivision and the duties of each group were specified. In a lengthy accountthese duties are described elaborately and to the minutest detail in thepeculiar temple jargon. To a person intimately connected with the templeritual and custom this is undoubtedly the most interesting part of the entirechronicle.

A perusal of the Koil-Olugu shows that the sequence of eventsadopted is jumbled, e.g., the period of the Acaryas is dealt with after the

first Muslim attack on Srirangam. Certain events or names are repeated in adifferent context; this was perhaps because an accountant recorded certainpast events in the diary without liquiring whether the same had beenrecorded or not by a predecessor of his. The jumbled sequence might havebeen due to the constant resuscitations of the original due to the vicissitudesof history and the imperfections and shortcomings of scribes. It is alsopossible that a scribe while making a copy made his own interpolations. TheOlugu maintains a fairly correct sequence of events while dealing with theVijayanagar period and after.

With its many imperfections in sequence, chronology and language9(The language of the Olugu is supposed to be the familiar manipravala styleof the Vaisnava hagiologies, i.e., a mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil. There isalso an admixture of the jargon of the Vaisnava temple, a part of it beingpeculiar to Srirangam. Many of the sentences are unmangeably long and dealwith a variety of details.) the Koil-Olugu is still a valuable source-book for ahistory of the Srirangam temple. Mr.R.Sewell made a correct guess of theworth of this chronicle when he said, “The priests of the (Srirangam) templehave in their possession a document which ought to be of real value, themahatmyas of temples being almost invariably an absurd jumble ofmythological fables. This is a chronicle called the ‘Varagu’, which is said togive a list of all the priests of the temple, with details of templemanagement from the earliest times.”10 (Lists of Antiquities. 1 p.268; seeIntroduction to Koil-Olugu in English, edited by the writer.

The Guruparamparai of Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar and the Divyasuricaritam

The Guruparamparai belongs to that type of chronicle known ashagiology. It records the history of a religious movement by tracing the listof its successive spiritual preceptors. Its usefulness for an attempt atreconstructing the history of Vaisnavism in South India cannot beexaggerated. To this type belong the Arayirappadi Guruparamparai ofPinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar, the Guruparamparai of the third BarahmatantraSwatantra Jiyar, the Divyasuricaritam and the Prapannamrtam ofAnantarya, the first two being Tamil (Manipravalam) works and the next twoSanskrit. The Acaryasuktimuktavali by Namburi Kesavacarya, also calledVaduga Nambi or Andhrapurna, is a similar hagiology in Telugu. Of these theearliest is the Aryirappadi Guruparamparai whose author is, according towell-known Vaisnava tradition, assigned to the first half of the 13thcentury. So far as the lives of the Alvars are concerned much of thechronicle is legendary in character. Yet the astronomical details of the

nativity of these Alvars as well as their original homes and their earlyactivities provide a starting point for further research. The Paramparai ismore dependable when it deals with the Acaryas, who were certainly lessremote; in fact Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar himself was living in the age of theAcaryas. He was the student of Nampillai. Nampillai was the successor ofNanjiyar on the Vaisnava pontifical seat at Srirangam; Nanjiyar was thestudent of Bhattar; and Bhattar in his turn was the successor of Ramanuja.Manavala Mahamuni came almost a century after Nampillai; and Pillai LokamJiyar continued the narrative of Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar and dealt in detailwith the life of Manavala Mahamuni in his ‘Yatindra Pravana Prabhavam’.

It was once believed that Garudavahana Pandita, the author of theDivyasuricaritam, was a contemporary of Ramanuja, but it has beeneffectively shown that he came much later and that his work was posteriorto and based on the Arayirappadi Guruparamparai.11 (Cf. B.V.Ramanujam’sarticle on the ‘Divyasuricaritam’ (JIH XIII, pp. 181-202) andA.S.Ramanatha Aiyar’s edition of the Srirangam inscription of GarudavahanaBhattar, S. 1415. (EI. XXIV. pp.90 ff). The author, who perhapscomposed the Caritam in the first years of the 15th century, did not tracethe account of the Divyasuris upto his own time. He stopped with Ramanuja;and he himself, in the opening verses, tells that his set purpose in composingthe Kavya was to trace the lives of the Divyasuris upto Ramanuja, which initself forms a convenient period in the history of the Vaisnava movement andabout which there is a continuous and unanimous tradition. In this work thelives of the Alvars are briefly traced in the first eight sargas. Sargas 9and 10 are taken up by the subject of Andal’s marriage with Sriranganatha.The ‘Mahatmyam’ of Srirangam finds mention in the 10th sarga. TirumangaiAlvar is again brought in as the thief who waylaid the marriage partyconsisting of Andal, Alagiyamanavalan and their attendants. The 15th sargais taken up by a recital of the festivals celebrated for the God atSrirangam throughout the different seasons of the year.

The Lakshmi Kavyam

The author of the Lakshmi Kavyam was Uttamanambi Tirumalacarya.He, says that he was the grandson of Uttamaraya, who had a brothernamed Cakraraya. The Koil Olugu speaks prominently of an Uttamanambi whohad the titles ‘Meinilaiyitta’, ‘Ellainilaiyitta’, and ‘Valiyadimainilaiyitta’, andhis brother Cakraraya and assigns him to the date S.1337. It is obviousthat the Uttamaraya of the Lakshmi Kavyam, who is said to haveadministered the Srirangam temple with royal insignia, is the same as

Valiyadimainilaiyitta Uttamanambi of the Koil-Olugu. A copper plateinscription belonging to the Srirangam temple mentions ValiyadimainilaiyittaPerumal Uttamanambi as the donee and is dated S.1356 or A.D.1434.12(E1. XVIII. Pp. 138 ff) His grandson Tirumalainatha Uttamanambi also,viz., S.1366 or A.D.1444. The Uttamanambi Vamsaprabhavam mentionsSrirangacarya Uttamanambi and assigns him to the period S.1328-1372. Italso mentions Tirumalainatha Aiyan Uttamanambi and says that be began tocollect donations for the temple after S.1372 (A.D.1450).13 (‘UttamanambiVamsaprabhavam’, Taylor III. p. 438.)

There is much common ground between the Divyasuricaritam and theLaksmikavyam; the two were not far removed from each other in date.Probably the kavyam appeared a little earlier than the caritam. While thelatter deals first with the lives of the Alvars and then dwells extensively onthe marriage of Andal with the God at Srirangam, the former is entirelyconcerned with the marriage of Uraiyurvalli (another consort of the God)with Sriranganatha. This kavya deals with the various festivities of theAdibrahmotsava in great detail and as such is of considerable interest to aperson intimately connected with the shrine, but unfortunately it has notbeen printed.

Local dynastic accounts

Two genealogical lists called the Annan Tirumaligai Olugu and theUttamanambi vamsa-prabhavam deal respectively with the families ofKandadai Andan, the son of Mudaliyandan, to whom the control of the templewas entrusted by Ramanuja, and the Uttamanambis, who played a notablepart in the history of the Srirangam temple, especially during theVijayanagar period. Both the accounts were collected by Col. ColinMackenzie. The latter is also available in print.

The Parameswara Samhita of the Pancaratragama

The Agamas form a voluminous part of Sanskrit literature. Like thestalamahatmyas they claim great antiquity and are attributed to the risis orthe sages of yore and appear in the form of discourses. There are threevarieties of agamas, viz., Saiva, Vaisnava and Sakta. The Vaisnava agamasare of two kinds, viz., Pancaratra and Vaikhanasa. While the latter isattributed to the sage Vikhanasa, various explanations are given for theformer, viz., that it explains five principles, that it was told during fivenights, that it expels five-fold darknesses, etc. Each has numerous guidebooks called samhitas, those of the Pancaratra being more numerous. They

are said to number more than 200. Of these the Satvata, the Pauskara andthe Jayakhya are said to be the most important. Different Vaisnavatemples following the Pancaratra have chosen different samhitas and havestuck to them at least so far as the rituals and mantras are concerned, andhence they serve as text-books for the priests. The Srirangam templefollows the Parameswara Samhita of the Pancaratragama.14(‘Sripancaratrantargata Sriparamesvarasamhita’, edited byU.V.Govindacarya, Srirangam, 1953. The printed part deals with theKriyakanda of the samhita, the gnanakanda having been lost.)

The samhita consists of 26 chapters and deals with the following:snanavidhi, bhutasuddhi, mantranyasa, berapuja, agnikarya, vimana devata,dvara-avaranadi devata, Garuda-Visvaksenadi parivararcanam, pratista-vidhanam, pavitrotsavam, sayanotsavam, dhvajarohanam, naivedyas,prayascittas, rules governing tulapurusa and hiranyagarbha danas,samproksnam, Sudarsana yantra, its puja, etc. It gives full details ofdisposition of the gateway gopuras of all the seven prakaras, dvarapalas andupadvarapalas, dvara devatas, avarana devatas, sobha devatas and upa-sobhadevatas, and the devatas of the various parts of the vimana includingthe sanctum.

It is not easy to fix the age of the samhita. It need not be held thatit belongs to a period when full blown temples with seven prakaras andelaborate rules regarding pujas, festivals, etc., were known, for such a viewpresupposes that the temple came first and then the agama. It is morelikely that the agamas, in a very early period, laid down rules, aselaborately as possible, governing the architecture and iconography of anideal temple as well as pujas, prayascittas etc., and that temple builderstried to follow them as best as they could. If it is accepted, on theauthority of the Koil-Olugu, that the Vaikhanasas were doing worship in theSrirangam temple and that they were replaced by Udayavar by prieststrained in the Pancaratra, as expounded in the Paramesvara-samhita,15(KO. pp.45, 46, 55, 100 and 173) the latter was certainly known in hisperiod and perhaps long before. One thing appears to be plain. Whoever theauthor of the samhita was he seems to have had the Srirangam temple in hismind, for Chapter X, which deals with the vimana devatas, mentions theRanga-vimana and relates its mahatmya. It is also possible that it was theproduct of more than one author belonging to different periods.

Modern Period

Coming to the modern period the monographs on the Nayaks of

Coming to the modern period the monographs on the Nayaks of

Madura and those of Tanjore, compiled with the help of inscriptions, theJesuit letters and the native chronicles, help in checking the accounts of theKoil-Olugu on the relations of the Nayaks with the Srirangam temple.16(‘The Nayaks of Madura’ by R.Sathyanatha Aiyar and the ‘Nayaks ofTanjore’ by V.Vriddhagirisan.) For the period of the rule of the Nawabs ofArcot and the Carnatic Wars have been utilised, in the main, Robert Orme’s‘Military transactions of the British nation in Indostan’ and Burhan IbnHasan’s Tuzaki-walajahi. Burhan, the son of Hasan, was a resident ofTrichinopoly and he wrote his work in the reign of Muhammad Ali Walajahwhen Haidar Ali invaded the Carnatic.17 (‘Tuzaki Walajahi’ (MadrasUniversity Islamic series 1. Translated and edited by M.Hussain Nainar),pt.1. p. XXVI.) Three collections of “Collectors’ and Magistrates’ Ordersand Judicial affairs and decisions in the Adalut Courts” with reference tothe details of administration and religious ceremonial of the Srirangam templethat arose between the years 1803 and 1894 by K.S.Rangaswamy Aiyangarof Srirangam compiled in the latter year are useful for a study of therecent history of the temple. The well-know Diary of Anandaranga Pillai hasalso been found to be useful.

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORY CHAPTER 2

LOCATION, NOMENCLATURE AND EARLY REFERENCES

The Thiruchirapalli rock and the twin rivers, the Kaveri and the Coleroon

Thiruchirapalli, the headquarters of the district of the same name,lies on the southern bank of the river Kaveri at a point crossed by latitude10.50 N and longitude 78.46 E. Great mountain ranges or chains of hills donot, anywhere in the district, form well-marked boundaries; but in the southand south-west lie scattered rocks, and some of these like the Tiruccirapallirock, the Golden Rock and Ratnagiri hill are solid and crystalline masses thatlured the minds of the ancient sculptors and temple builders. TheThiruchirapalli rock is historically the most important of these, and itsheight, from the level of the roads below it, is 273’. Nearby lies the suburbof Uraiyur, which was once the capital of the Colas. Opposite to it and onthe northern bank of the Kaveri lie the Vaisnava and Saiva shrines ofSrirangam and Jambukesvaram on an islet formed by the two rivers, theKaveri and the Coleroon.

The river Kaveri, which divides the district into two nearly equalparts, the northern and the southern, splits into two nine miles west ofSrirangam. The northern branch takes the name of Coleroon (Kollidam) whilethe southern retains the name of the Kaveri. Eight miles east of the townthey almost reunite through the channel known as Ullar, but are kept apartby a dam known as the Grand Anicut. The main river, viz., the Kaveri,which takes its source in the Western Ghats in Coorg, enters the Tanjoredistrict, exhausts itself in a network of irrigation channels, and almost losesitself in the sands before reaching the sea. But the Coleroon, which formsthrough its entire length the dividing line between the Thiruchirapalli and theTanjore districts, falls into the sea at the northern most point of theTanjore district as a wide mouthed river.

From its source upto Erode the river is known as the Kaveri; fromErode upto the point of bifurcation ahead of Srirangam as the ‘Akhanda’ or‘undivided’ Kaveri and thence Kaveri once more. The two branches of thesame river are also referred to as the southern and the northern Kaveririvers in literature of a traditional and religious type. Ptolemy refers to it inhis Geography as Khaberos.

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a yHistats

The river has ever been an important adjunct to the Hindu temple andthe former is as sacred as the latter. This is especially so with regard tothe Srirangam temple, which lies in all the natural richness and sanctity thatcould be afforded by the two rivers that flow on either side, ‘garlanding’ asit were, in the language of the Mahatmya, the God enshrined therein.According to Puranas (Agneya and Skanda) Kaveri was originally the daughterof Brahma and later became the adopted child of Kaveramuni. Out of herown prayers she became a sacred river, whose waters should wash away allsin. According to the Harivamsa Kaveri was originally one-half of the Gangaand became the river that she is as a result of the curse of her father.The Tamil classic Manimekalai says that the river was brought into existenceby the prayers of Kantaman and his devotion to the sage Agastya to avertthe distress caused by drought in his land; and that it appeared by the sideof the city of Campapati.1 (Manimekalai, Padigam, lines 6-14) The name‘Kaveri’ is better explained by some such legendary association rather thanan attempted derivation of the word from ‘Kavi’ (red ochre) because of themuddy colour of the river during floods, or ‘ka’ a grove and ‘eri’ a lake.2(Caldwell (Grammar of Dravidian Languages) p.569.)

The river Kaveri seems to have been a freakish river in ancient times.The building of floodbanks to the river by Karikala Cola is prominentlymentioned in Tamil literary tradition. The river must have overflowedbecause it had very few outlets excepting one, viz., the Coleroon, in theshape of tributaries that spread all over the Tanjore district today. In thehistorical period the Srirangam temple itself was often threatened by floodsin the Kaveri and diversion channels had to be dug now and then to removethe overflow.3 (KO. pp. 118-19)

The river Coleroon is a more imposing river than the Kaveri as it movesfarther and farther away from its parent. The Tamil forms Kollidam.Kollidam mean respectively a ‘receptacle’ or ‘reservoir’ and ‘a place ofslaughter’. The fact that the Coleroon acts as a safety-valve of the Kavericarrying off its surplus water might have given rise to the form of ‘Kollidam’.Regarding the other expression popular tradition says that a certain localchief build the temple at Srirangam with the help of wealth obtained fromplunder. The builder employed an army of men and ultimately found hiscoffers empty. When the labourers clamoured for wages he took them all ina huge boat to the middle of the river Coleroon, where he drowned themwith the thought that they would obtain beautification as a reward for theirsacred services. The Guruparamparai and the Prapannamrtam mention thisincident and attribute it to Tirumangai Alvar.

Uraiyur

Uraiyrur (Woraiyur) was the capital of the earliest known Colasreferred to by the Sangam literature. Today it is an insignificant suburb ofThiruchirapalli and contains an important sub-shrine attached to theSrirangam temple, viz., that of Uraiyur Nacciyar, one of the two consortsof Alagiyamanavalan, the God at Srirangam, the other being SrirangaNacciyar, whose shrine is contained within the main temple of Srirangam.

In Sanskrit Uraiyur has been known as Uragapura. The Gadval platesof the Early Calukya king, Vikramaditya I, dated 674 A.D. mentionUragapura, on the southern bank of the Kaveri, referring to Uraiyur. ThePrapannamrtam adopts this terminology. In Vaishnava tradition Uraiyur isknown as Nisulapuri, after Nisulai, the mother of Kamalavalli, a Colaprincess, who became the consort of the God at Srirangam. Uraiyur itselfmeans nothing more than a place of dwelling in Tamil.

The Nisulapurai Mahatmya gives the following account of Uraiyur andUraiyur Nacciyar. The environs of the Thiruchirapalli rock, which were thickforests, were once the abode of the asura Kara. The sage Agastya madethat region a fit habitat for the Risis by sending the asura to the north.Then the Cola king, Dharmavaram, left Kumbakonam and founded a city onthe southern bank of the Kaveri and called it Nisulapuri after his wifeNisula. To these mortals was born Lakshmi because she repulsed the sageBhrigu, who attempted an exclusive interview with Visnu and thus stood inthe way of her dalliance with her lord. She was called Vasalaksmi and sheloved and married God Ranganatha. The Divyasuricaritam gives the sameepisode of Uraiyurvalli, but the Koil-Olugu mentions her as the daughter ofNanda Cola, a descendant of Dharmavarma. The latter account furtherstates that after the marriage of Kamalavalli with Alagiyamanavalan, theGod at Srirangam, Nanda Cola constructed many mantapas, gopuras and wallsin Srirangam, and built a temple in his own city of Uraiyur for his daughterand the ‘Divine Bridegroom’. The love of the divine daughter of the Cola withthe God culminating in marriage has been the favourite theme of someromantic pieces of Vaisnava literature, the chief of which of which is theSanskrit work called the Lakshmi Kavya by Uttamanambi Tirumalacarya. Thesame theme is celebrated by the Panguni Uttiram festival, which forms anexciting item of the Adibrohmotsava in Srirangam. According to the KavyaUraiyurvalli (Laksmi) was the daughter of Karikala Cola and she choseRanganatha as her husband in a svyamvara, which was attended by the godsof both the Vaishnava and Saiva pantheon.

Srirangam

Srirangam is classed as the first and most important of the 108Vaisnava shrine which lie scattered throughout India. In Vaisnava parlance ithas been known as the ‘koil’ - the temple par excellence - and bears thesame relation to Vaisnavism as Cidambaram does to Saivism. The temple wallscontain inscriptions dating from the 10th century. A history of Srirangamresolves itself into an account of the growth of the Vaisnava cult in SouthIndia. From the start the Vaisnava movement made Srirangam itsheadquarters and its rallying point, and the Vaisnava bards and mysticslooked upon the shrine as the loadstar of their devotions and aspirations. Allthe Alvars with the exception of Madurakavi, whose only work was the ‘ten’beginning with Kanninunciruttambu in laudation of his Acarya, Nammalvar,have mentioned the shrine and its deity Ranganatha in their works, andMadurakavi himself was very active in the shrine for the sake of his guruthough he has not mentioned it in his verses.

The local stalapurana

The origin of this shrine is carried to hoary antiquity by pious traditionand belief which find sanctity and greatness in what is immemorial.Accordingly much stress is laid upon the deity rather than the temple. Theorigin of the temple is the problem of the archaeologist and is more secular,but not so is the quest of the pious devotee, who regards the temple as theearthly abode of God, who is eternal and universal; to him the temple cannotbut be without a beginning, and more so the vimana or the sanctum containingthe image of the God. The Sriranga Mahatmya4 (An orthodox version is givenin ASI, Madras, 1903-4 pp. 60 ff.) gives this traditional account about theorigin of the Sriranga Vimana, around which grew the temple in the course oftime. The following is a brief account of the Mahatmya, which is said toform part of the Brahmanda purana, one of the 18 Mahapuranas.

Rudra expounds to Narada the origin, growth and greatness ofSriranga thus:

When God created Brahma from his navel and deputed him to createthe earth the latter was at his wit’s end when he saw a sheer expanse of awater. When he was thus perplexed God came to him in the form of a swan(hamsa) and saying ‘Om’ disappeared. Then Brahma worshipped God saying‘Om’. Once again God appeared to him as a swan and preached the Vedas,which were stolen away by the two asuras, Madhu and Kaitabha. Brahma,unable to trace them even after an elaborate search, appealed to God, who

appeared to him in the form of a fish, killed the asuras in His manifestationof a horse (hayagriva) and disappeared after restoring the Vedas. ThenBrahma created the universe.

He was displeased, however, with his creation, for he found thateverything was transient and disappeared in course of time. He went toKsirasagar (‘Ocean of milk’) and worshipped God, who appeared to him as atortoise. Brahma was puzzled and prayed to God to show him His real form.Thereupon God advised him to worship Him by repeating the Astaksara orthe eight-lettered mantra (Om Namo Narayanaya). Brahma, so doing, losthimself in penance and contemplation. As a result of his penance theSriranga Vaimana sprang from the Ksirasagar radiating lustre alround.5 (Theexpression Sriranga Vimana is used to denote the turret as well as the ovalshaped sanctum beneath it, containing the image of the reclining Ranganatha.The turret, the sanctum and the image form a single whole and areinseparably associated with one another.) It was borne by Garuda. Sesa,the Serpent God, had spread his hood over it. Visvaksena, with a stick inhand, cleared the way for the God. The sun and moon were fanning the deitywith chowries. Narada and Tumburu followed singing. There was theJayaghosa of Rudra and other gods and the ‘Dundubighosa’. The celestialcourtesans danced. Clouds rained flowers. There were great hurrahs andtumult.

Brahma awoke from his penance and prostrated himself before thevimana. He stood up saying the four Vedas through his four mouths and waslost in amazement. Sunanda, a celestial watch at the gate (dwarapalaka),told him that the three lettered Vimana, ‘Sri-ra-nga’ was the result of hispenance, that God was resting with His consort inside and that he could seeHim and worship Him. Then Brahma worshipped the Almighty for a long time.Finally the God spoke to him thus: “Listen O Brahma! I have appeared as aresult of your penance.” Then he explained to him the four types of idolsand vimanas, - (1) Svayamvykta - created by God, i.e., God Himselfchoosing to come down as an idol, (2) Divya - created by the Devas, (3)Saiddha - created by a great seers and (4) Manusya - created by mortals.“The Vimanas of the first class, viz., Svayamvyakta will appear in eightplaces - Srirangam, Srimusnam, Venkatadri, Saligram, Naimisaranyam,Totadri, Puskara and Badrikasrama. Rangavimana is the first and theearliest of these” Speaking of the second class of idols the God said, “I willcome to Kanci as Varadaraja, where my idol will be installed by you. Anantawill instal my idol in the south, Rudra in Kandikapura, Visvakarma at Nanda,Dharma at Vrisabagiri, Asvini at Asvatirtha, Indra at Cakratirtha, etc. So

also great seers will install me in certain places and men everywhere.” Thenthe God explained to Brahma the procedure for conducting the worship andlay down in the characteristic pose at Srirangam and kept silent.

Brahma took the vimana from Ksirasagar to his abode in Satyaloka andestablished it on the banks of the Vraja. He appointed Viwasvan, the sungod, to do the daily puja of the God. After Viwasvan his son VaivasvataManu continued the puja. Iksvaku, a son of Manu, became the king ofAyodhya and found it difficult to worship the vimana at Satyaloka. Hence hedid penance, which extended over hundreds of years, and obtained thepermission of Brahma to take it to Ayodhya. After Iksvaku his descendantsworshipped the God. Rama gave the vimana to Vibhisana, who established iton the banks of the Kaveri.

At this stage Narada asks Rudra to give details of the above account,viz., the coming of the vimana to Srirangam. Rudra replies:

Vasista told Iksvaku, his disciple, the origin of the Sriranga Vimanaand added that after being worshipped by him and his generations, it wouldestablish itself in Srirangam and be worshipped by the Cola monarchs. Asadvised by his guru Iksvaku did penance near the former’s asrama with theobject of bringing the vimana to Ayodhya from Satyaloka. Indra, the king ofthe gods knew the purpose of the penance and consulted Brahma about thepossibility of their losing the vimana. Brahma went to Visnu, who told himthat it was His intention to go to Ayodhya and thence to Srirangam. ThenBrahma brought the vimana to Iksvaku on the back of Garuda. Iksvakucarried the vimana to Ayodhya, established it between the rivers Sarayuand Tamasa, built a shrine and organised worship.

Dasaratha, in the line of Iksvaku, performed the sacrifices ofAsvamedha and Putrakamesti for which celebrations he invited monarchs ofall India, one of whom was Dharmavarma, the Cola. Dharmavarma saw theRangavimana, knew its history and wanted to have it in his country. So, whenhe returned home he began performing penance on the banks of theCandrapuskarani.6 (A tank in the Srirangam temple.) The risis around said tohim, “Nearby lies your old city in ruins.7 (The reference is to Uraiyur, thecapital of the Colas.) Rudradeva burnt it in anger. Close to it there was arisi-asram, where we had congregated under the leadership of Dalbya risi,who worshipped God. When God appeared to him, he requested Him to staythere and sanctify the place, to which the latter replied that in His avataras Rama, He would come to that place as Ranganatha, for the sake ofVibhisana. We are expecting the Sriranga Vimana even now. Hence your

penance is unnecessary”. On hearing this Dharmavarma stopped his penanceand retired to Nisula.

Rama worsted Ravana in battle, crowned Vibhisana king of Lanka andperformed the ‘asvamedha’ sacrifice in Ayodhya. To it all were invitedincluding Dharmavarma. Rama presented the Rangavimana to Vibhisana out ofhis munificence as the latter was very much helpful to him in his fightagainst Ravana.

Vibhisana bore the vimana on his head and, on his way to Lanka,stopped at Srirangam and placed the vimana on the banks of theCandrapuskarani. The risis immediately informed Dharmavarma about thearrival of the vimana. The Cola king came to the spot and received Vibhisanawith great delight. The latter bathed in the sacred waters of the Kaveriand worshipped the vimana. Dharmavarma also performed puja and requestedVibhisana to stay with him for a few days. To this Vibhisana did not agreeand said that an utsava had to be performed in Lanka the next day. Thecola replied that the festival might as well be performed in his own countryand that he would meet all the expenses. Vibhisana then agreed to stay, andthe festival was begun and celebrated for nine days in a grand fashion.After a stay of a fortnight Vibhisana started for Lanka. To his utteramazement and sorrow the vimana had got itself fixed to the spot where hehad placed it and had become irremovable.8 (According to the popular localversion Vibhisana had been instructed by Rama not to place the vimana onthe ground. At Srirangam Vibhisana entrusted it to a Brahmana boy for ashort while. The latter placed it on the ground as the former did not returnin time, as promised. When he returned Vibhisana found the vimana on theground and irremovable. He became angry and chased the boy, who ran upthe rock on the other side of the Kaveri. He was no other than Ganesa(Uccipillaiyar). See also Parameswara Samhita (10:279-281) ) Vibhisanashed tears. The God then said to him, “This place is good, so also its kingand people. I desire to stay here. You may retire to Lanka”. He alsorelated to Vibhisana the sanctity of the river Kaveri. “Visvavasu, aGandharva of the Vindhyas, met on the hill side a congregation of rivergoddesses and made his obeisance to them. Immediately a debate arose asto whom it was meant. All except Ganga and Kaveri withdrew from thecontest. Both the disputants went to Brahma, who declared that Ganga wassuperior. Kaveri did penance as a result of which Brahma granted to her astatus of equality. Still dissatisfied she is performing penance atSaraksetra. To give her the first place among the rivers I have to raiseher sanctity to the utmost by remaining in her midst. I will recline here

facing your country. You may go back to Lanka.”

Dharmavarma built a shrine for the vimana, the surrounding prakarasand organised worship.

As noted earlier this Mahatmya, which claims the parentage of theBrahmanda purana, is at best the crystallisation of a local tradition that hadgrown up in course of time; as such no date could be assigned to it. Thechronology adopted by it is simply baffling and hence useless for historicalpurposes. Taking the tradition of the eight shrines of the “Svayamvyakta”idols to be a genuine and an old one, one can perhaps say that Srirangam wasthe first and earliest among the major Vaisnava shrines of South India.Dharmavarma, the Cola king, who was a contemporary of Dasaratha andRama, is undoubtedly a mythical figure. The pauranica does not care toconnect the historical Colas with the legendary Cola, nor does he hesitate topass from one yuga to another. But the chronicler, in the Koil-Olugu,obviously found some difficulty in closing so wide a gap in time, and ininventing the story of a sandstorm, in which was buried the whole templeconstructed by Dharmavarma, he achieved a double purpose; on the one hadhe passed from the Treta yuga to Kali yuga, and on the other fromDharmavarma to the historical Killi Cola, who is said to have reconstructedthe temple. That seems to be the best way of interpreting the account ofthe sandstorm referred to in the Olugu.

That this tradition in the Mahatmya was not of a late origin andpurely of local character can be gleaned from references to it in the ValmikiRamayana and the Padma and Matsya puranas. From the Valmiki Ramayanawe know that Rama advised Vibhisana, before he retired to Vaikunta, to ruleover his country with righteousness and to worship constantly the familydeity of the Iksvaku kings that had been presented to him.9 (Uttarakanda,sarga 131, slokas 30, 31 and 91.) The object presented is mentioned askuladana or family property. That this kuladana was Sriranga Vimana isknown from the Padma Purana.10 (Padma Purana, Uttara kanda, Ch.90(Sriranga varnana) ) The Matsya Purana mentions Srirangam as a place ofpilgrimage.11 (Ch.22. v.44. (12) Canto X.L.156; XI.L.39.) In the presentstage of things these references are more genuine that the ‘10 chapters’ ofthe Sriranga Mahatmya, said to be an episode in the Brahmanda Purana andthe ‘108 chapters’ version of the Garuda Purana.

Etymology

Srirangam is a compound of Sri and Rangam. In Sanskrit Rangam means

a stage; and Srirangam means ‘the holy stage’ or ‘the holy stage-like seatof God’. In Tamil arangam means an islet formed by two rivers, and it is bythis epithet that the shrine is generally referred to by the Vaisnava worksin Tamil. The Silappadikaram refers to it by this term and also by turutti,both meaning the same thing.12 (Canto X.L.156; XI.L.39.) Kovalan, thehero of the Silappadikaram, wanted to earn a living in Madurai, after he hadspent his fortune upon the courtesan Madavi in Puhar or Kavirippumpattinam.He started along with his virtuous wife Kannaki, and “after several daysjourney, they reached Srirangam, where the river Kaveri was hidden by theisland. Nearby was the habitation fit for the gods - a spot filled with thefragrance of different flowers in the thick groves fenced by the bentbamboo.”13 (Canto X. LL. 155-58) At this point they crossed the Kaveriand reached Uraiyur on the southern bank of the river. From Uraiyur theyproceeded south and after a short journey “met a venerable Brahmana, whopraised the Pandyan king of unblemished repute. On Kovalan asking him whichwas his native home and what brought him there, he said: ‘I am a native ofMankadu, in the region of Kudamalai (the western hills). I came to satisfymy heart’s desire to see with my own eyes the glory of Visnu, whom manyworship with prayer as He reposes with Laksmi in His breast on the couch ofthe widening waves of the Kaveri, even as the blue clouds repose supine onthe slopes of the lofty golden mountain (Meru). (I also came to see) thebeauty of the red-eyed Lord, holding in his beautiful lotus-hands the discus,which is death to His enemies, and also the milk-white conch; (to see Him)wearing a garland of flowers on His breast, and draped in golden flowers, onHis breast, and draped in golden flowers, and dwelling upon the topmostcrest of the tall and lofty hill named Venkatam with innumerable water-falls,standing like a cloud in its natural hue adorned with a rain-bow and attiredwith lightning, in the midst of a place both sides of which are illuminated bythe spreading rays of the sun and moon.”14 (V.R.R. Dikshitar’s edn. Of theSilappadikaram (pp.172-73); Canto XI.LL.35-51) On ascertaining from thisBrahmana the best route to Madurai they proceeded on their way to thatcity.

Now this reference to the important Vaisnava temples in South Indiaby the Silappadikaram is noteworthy. But it is unfortunate that the date ofthis epic has so far remained a point of doubt and controversy. TheGajabahu synchronism establishes beyond doubt the contemporaneity of CeranSenguttuvan, who raised an image for Kannaki, the heroine of the epic, andGajabahu I, who reigned in the later half of the 2nd century A.D. Yet somescholars have raised the pertinent question, “when was the epic in itspresent form composed?” In the existing state of our knowledge it does not

present form composed?” In the existing state of our knowledge it does not

appear to be an easy task to answer this question with precision. Avoiding acontroversy, which leads us nowhere, we may, for all practical purposes,agree with the generally accepted date, viz., the second half of the 2ndcentury A.D.15 (V.R.R.Dikshitar (op.cit) pp.8-9. Intrn.)

A reference to Arangam and the Panguni festival in an Aham ode isinteresting. It mentins Urandai, Arangam and the Panguni festival. The poemis to the following effect: “Although your lover has not yet crossed over toforeign tracts (to earn a livelihood) I am surprised to see how much you aredistressed by the thought of separation. Your face has lost its lustre andresembles the sandy and thickly wooded river bank in Arangam (in Uraiyur ofthe mighty Colas) with quenched hearths, strewn hither and thither afterthe close of the celebration of the Panguni festival; your shoulders likewisehave lost their beauty. How can I bear this (behaviour of yours.”16 (Aham137.) This poem is by Mudukuttanar of Uraiyur, and purports to be thesentiments expressed by the confidante of the heroine, when the latter wasoppressed by the thought of separation from her lover. It is quite likelythat Arangam, here, refers to Srirangam, closely associated with Uraiyur,the Cola capital. The absence of joyous tumult on the banks of the Kaveriafter the Panguni festival is taken by the poet as the point of comparison.Apparently there is no association of the festival with the Vaisnava templeat Srirangam and Arangam might be interpreted simply as the scene of thefestival. The reference is as good or as bad as ‘Venkatam of festivals’ inanother Aham ode.17 (Aham 61) The reading of the Vaisnava temples ofSrirangam and Vengadam in the Ahananuru, however, need not be looked atwith suspicion. It may be noted here that the first three Alvars (i.e. theMudalalvars), who have made a number of references in their verses to theGod enshrines in these two places, belong, in the opinion of a majority ofmodern scholars, to the period of the classical Tamil literature, i.e., of theSangam period, to which the Aham odes belong. It is also to be noted thatKilli Cola, who figures in the Koil-Olugu as the founder of the Srirangamtemple, belongs to the Sangam period. There is also the tradition of theCola princess, who loved and married Ranganatha, which is the theme of theepic, the Laksmi Kavya, and which is the main event of the Adibrahmotsava,viz., the Panguni Uttiram festival. The inference may thus be drawn thatthe origins of the Srirangam temple may be laid in the Sangam period.

The first Alvars and Srirangam

The Vaisnava tradition assigns the First Alvars (Mudalalvar) toDvapara yuga, evidently in recognition of their antiquity. These are the

Alvars Poigai, Bhutam and Pey. We have a Poigaiyar, a Bhuttanar and aPeyanar among the Sangam poets. Controversy has mainly centred round theidentification of the Poigai Alvar of the First Tiruvandadi with the Poigaiyarof the Kalavali Forty, a Sangam work. Several scholars have accepted theidentification while some have not.18 (M.Raghava Aiyangar. Sen Tamil;I.p.6, and Alwargal Kalanilai, p.23 ff. Contra M.S.Srinivasa Pillai, TamilVaralaru, pp.176-7, and N.M.Venkatasamy Nattar, Sentamil Selvi, II.Article on Poigaiyar.) We may proceed on the assumption that the firstAlvars belong to the Sangam age.

Poigai Alvar sings of the God at Srirangam and exclaims that he wouldnever forget the Perumal: “I knew and worshipped, even while I was in mymother’s womb, the glories of Periya Perumal, who is resting in Srirangam.His form, which resembles the cool expanse of the sea, I can never forget.O unspiritual beings! I can never remove His image from my mind, today,when I am full of the knowledge of God.”19 (Nalayirapprabandam, I centum6.)

Bhuttattu Alvar stresses the Vaisnava doctrine of self-surrenderthus: “Those who do not follow the right path of object submission to theGod, who is resting at Tennarangam, will have to snap the strong bonds offamily, etc., (and practise ascerticism). But lo, before such men reach thestrongly guarded Vaikuntam, the abode of the eternals, its gateway would beclosed! This truth, now, I have come to know”.20 (II centum 88.)

Pey Alvar refers to “Tiruvarangam brimming with gardens full ofhoneyed flowers” and says that Kanci, Tiruvarangam, Kudandai (Kumbakonam)and Tirukkottiyur are the earthly abodes of God.21 (III centum.62.)

Tirumalisai Alvar

According to the Vaisnava tradition Alvar Tirumalisai was the youngercontemporary of the First Alvars. In both of his works, the TiruccandaViruttam and the Nanmugan Tiruvandadi Tirumalisai refers many a time tothe shrine of Srirangam and the God resting therein. The Kaveri with itsbranch, the Coleroon, encircling the shrine, as well as luxuriant gardens thatabounded on the fertile soil of Srirangam (as is the case even today) seemto have captured the imagination of these early mystic poets as forcibly asthe numerous waterfalls on the Tirumalai hills. Two typical verses from theTiruccanda Viruttam are to the following effect: “Where abides the Godthat playfully shot from his bow balls of earth at the hunchbacked woman,whose head was adorned with flowers visited by bees? (The divine abode is)

Tiruvarangam watered by the beautiful and cool river Kaveri, at whose banksthe crane walks majestically feeding on the crabs, (at which) the valai fishskip about in fear and the Kendai take shelter in water lilies”.22 (TiruccandaVriuttam.49.)

Again, “which is the sacred shrine where abides the mighty Perumalwho, once, shot arrows from His strong bow, the ‘Sarnga’, so that even theblack sea with white waves caught fire and glowed red? (It is) the beautifulTiruvarangam, which contains many sacred pools, in which people from all theeight directions bathe and worship and which is surrounded by gardens wheresing the bees.”23 (Ibid.50.)

Over and above the river and the gardens, Srirangam was famous forthe eight sacred pools or punya tirtas in the eight directions around theshrine, which are referred to by Tirumalisai, when he speaks of the ‘sacredpools, in which people from all the eight directions bathe and worship’ Thelocal stalamahatmya, said to form part of the Garuda purana, speaks ofthese eight tirtas, surrounding the chief tirta within the shrine, viz., theCandrapuskarani. They are (1) the Asvatta tirta in the south, (2) thePalasa tirta in the southwest, (3) the Punnaga tirta in the west, (4) theVagula tirta in the northwest, (5) the Kadamba tirta in the north, (6) theAmra tirta in the northeast, (7) the Bilva tirta in the east, and (8) theJambu tirta in the southeast. Each tirta had its own presiding deity, its ownMahatmya and certain vratas connected with it. Each was associated with aparticular tree.

With absolute and surprising confidence in the divine beneficenceTirumalisai exclaims: “Sriranganatha, who protects me with His saving gracewill hold me back and prevent my entry into the stage of wordly life; mymind He has made His constant abode. Hence will He quit it for His serpentcouch on the Tirupparkadal? (He will not)”.24 (Nanmugan Tiruvandadi 30.)

The Origin of the Shrine

Leaving aside the traditional account of the origin of the SrirangaVimana as described in the Stalamahatmya it may be inferred, from theabove discussion, that the main shrine of the Ranganatha temple was erectedsometime in the Sangam period, when the early Colas were ruling fromUraiyur. The early Alvars, whose references to Srirangam were consideredabove, are assigned to this period on the strength of the identification ofPoigai Alvar with Poigaiyar. The references to Arangam in the Aham ode andto the image of reclining Visnu at Srirangam in the Silappadikaram further

strengthen this view. The Koil-Olugu refers to a certain Killi Cola, who wasinformed of the buried Sriranga Vimana in his dream and who resuscitatedthe shrine by pulling down the enclosing forests and removing the sand thathad covered it.25 (KO.p.3-4) The Olugu continues that he built theprakaras, as of old, laid down many flower-gardens and instituted thetemple services and organised worship. ‘Killi’ is obviously a contraction of‘Killi’,26 (This form is adopted in such names of villages, in the Tanjore andThiruchirapalli districts), Kilinalur, Nalakillinallur and Kilianur.) and in Killi Colaof the Koil-Olugu, we meet the first historical person mentioned in thatchronicle, who also figures as the builder of the temple. ‘Killi, was used as asynonym for ‘Cola’ and many Cola kings of the Sangam age bore that title;some of them were Nalangilli, Nedungilli and Perunarkilli. It is a futile tasktherefore to investigate who the Killi Cola referred to by the Olugu is. Forall practical purposes we have to assume that the first foundations of thetemple were laid by a certain Cola king of Uraiyur, who ruled before thetime of Koccenganan, the contemporary of Poigai Alvar or Poigaiyar, to whomSrirangam was already a shrine of some fame. It was in the fitness ofthings that an early Cola king of Uraiyur selected such a beautiful site asSrirangam, lying as it does between the two branches of the river Kaveri,which almost encircle it, and so near his own capital, to build a temple on,which in course of time grew up to be the biggest Vaisnava temple in SouthIndia, a temple with the full complement of seven prakaras or enclosuresrunning round the sanctum.

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORY

CHAPTER 3

THE PERIOD OF THE PALLAVAS AND EARLY PANDYAS

In the previous chapter an attempt was madeto trace the origin of the Srirangam temple and its early growth in theSangam period or roughly the first few centuries of the Christian era withthe help of a few references in the classical Tamil literature and the versesof the First Alvars. These show that the temple had attained sufficientimportance as to attract people “from the eight directions” who bathed inthe sacred pools and offered worship. The god was undoubtedly Visnureclining on the serpent couch (Adisesa).

Srirangam, during this period lay in the territory of the early Colas,who ruled from Uraiyur. Their hegemony may be said to have lasted, say,upto the 4th or the 5th century A.D. There follows a period of twilight,when it would appear that the Colas, Ceras and the Pandyas were alldefeated and their territories overrun by some tribe or tribes, alien to theTamils, who called them in detestation ‘Kali arasar’ or ‘evil kings’, and that itwas on the ruins of the kingdom of these tribes of ‘Kalabhras’ that thePandyas revived their power in the south and the Pallavas established theirkingdom to the north of the Kaveri towards the close of the 6th centuryA.D. We are on firm ground from 575 A.D. when the Pallava monarchs ofthe Simhavisnyu line began to rule from Kanci. The Colas seem to havecontinued to rule from Uraiyur not independently but as subordinates of thePallavas. They were able to reestablish their independent power only towardsthe close of the 9th century, when the Pallavas of Kanci had weakenedthemselves to a point of exhaustion as a result of almost unending conflictswith the early Calukyas of Vatapi in the north in the early period and thePandyas in the south in the later period.

Though this age, i.e., the period immediately preceding the rise of theCola empire under Vijayalaya and Aditya, witnessed considerable politicalunsettlement and confusion it was yet the heroic age of Hinduism in SouthIndia. It saw the activities of the Saivite trio Appar, Sambandar andSundarar, the authors of the intensely devotional Tevaram songs, and whopopularised Sivabhakti among the princes and the people. MahendravarmanPallava (600-630 A.D.) was converted by Appar from Jainism to Saivism andthe Pandya Parankusa Maravarman alias Kun Pandya (670-710 A.D.) was

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a yHistats

the Pandya Parankusa Maravarman alias Kun Pandya (670-710 A.D.) wassimilarly converted by Sambandar. Everywhere in the south the Saiva andVaisnava movements were together overcoming the influence of Jainism andBuddhism in high places and recording their triumphs. Temples to Siva andVisnu were constructed in large numbers, e.g., the early Calukyan andPallava temples. The Srirangam temples seems to have waxed under theimpact of this renaissance. This is evident from the prabandas or verses ofthe later Alvars.

The Later Alvars and Srirangam

The later Alvars are Nammalvar or Satakopa, Madurakavi (the discipleof the former), Kulasekhara Alvar, Periyalvar, Andal (the daughter ofPeriyalvar), Tondaradippodi Alvar or Bhaktanghrirenu, Tiruppan Alvar orYogivaha and Tirumangai Alvar or Parakala. According to Vaisnava traditionmost of these were contemporaries, of whom Tirumangai was the latest,i.e., who outlived the rest. Their chronology presents several problems.Working backwards from the age of the Acaryas and on the basis of thetradition, which interposes an interval of 200 years between the last of theAlvars and the first of the Acaryas, they are all assigned to the 8thcentury A.D. All these make interesting and useful references to the shrineof Srirangam; and atleast two of them are exclusively associated with it.

Nammalvar and Madurakavi

According to the Guruparamparai Nammalvar belonged to a dynasty ofchiefs of Tirukkurugur in the Tinnevelly district. His works are theTiruvaimoli, the Tiruviruttam, the Tiruv asiriyam and the Periya Tiruvandadi.In these works the idea of self-surrender or ‘prapatti’ is explained in themost touching words, voiced sometimes by a forlorn mother, sometimes by alady in love and sometimes by a pious devotee of God. Of the four works,which are compared with the four Vedas, the Tiruvaimoli is considered to bethe most important. In the 1,000 verses of this work Nammalvar invokesVisnu enshrined in Tirukkurugur, Tiruvengadam, Srirangam, Vanamamalai,Tirumalirumsolai, etc., and yearns passionately that he be absorbed into thedivine self. He devotes 10 verses to Srirangam while invoking God throughthe medium of an intense feeling of sympathy of a mother for her distractedand love-lorn daughter. A single stanza will suffice to explain to the literaryartist the subtle way in which the Alvar expresses his emotions.

She knows no sleep either in the day or in the night; tears streamdown her eyes;

She raises her hands (in obeisance) to thy conch and the discus;

your lotus like eyes she pines for; ‘How shall I exist without you’ she exclaims; in despair she clutches

at the wide earth; What hast thou proposed to do for her, O god of Tiruvarangam,

watered by the Kaveri, wherein skip the young fish?1 (Tiruvaimoli, 1-2-7)

In verse 3 of this ‘ten’ there is an important reference which goes toshow that Srirangam was, in the days of Nammalvar, a shrine surrounded byprakara walls; it refers to ‘Tiruvarangam surrounded by mighty prakara wallsadorned by flags and pennons’! But for a few other references to the coolwaters (of the rivers) that surround the shrine, it is too much to expect anything of historical interest in these verses, though each contains much thatwould engage the attention of a philosopher or literary critic. According tothe Vaisnava tradition the recitation of the Tiruvaimoli in the Srirangamtemple, during the famous Adyayana festival, is continuing ever sinceTirumangai Alvar established that practice. After the demise of Nammalvarhis devout sisya, Madurakavi, installed an image of his guru in a shrine atTirumangai and was glorifying his name in various ways. The Koil-Olugu addsthat he was occasionally going over to Srirangam to inquire after the templeaffairs.2 (K.O.p.9)

Kulasekhara Alvar

Alvar Kulasekhara is one of the later Alvars who were intimatelyconnected with Srirangam, the others being Tondaradippodi Alvar, TiruppanAlvar and Tirumangai alvar, and all these were roughly contemporary.Perhaps we know more about Alvar Kulasekhara from his own words than anyother Alvar. He calls himself a king of the Kongu country with the capital atKolli.3 (Perumal Tirumoli, 3-9, 6-10) In course of time he became a greatdevotee of Visnu, abdicated his kingdom in favour of his son and aftervisiting many famous Vaisnava shrines retired to Srirangam, where he livedtill his death along with his daughter Cerakulavalli doing manifold services tothe God and the temple.

Kulasekara Alvar was perhaps one of the early Kerala kings,frequently referred to in the copper plate grants of the Pandya kings of the8th century A.D. as their victims on the fields of battle. He was certainlynot the famous Cera king, Ravivarman Kulasekhara, who came to power about1311-12 A.D., for epigraphical evidence goes to show that the Alvar’sverses were being sung in the Srirangam temple in the 11th century, andperhaps earlier.4 (62 of 1892; SII IV; 70.) It may also be noted that herefers to Tondaradippodi in one of his verses; and it is just possible that

the former was having in his mind the Alvar of that name.5 (PerumalTirumoli, 2-2)

Perumal Tirumoli is the work of Kulasekhara Alvar. Mukundamala inSanskrit is also attributed to him. The former abounds in interestingreferences to Srirangam. This work consists of 105 verses divided into ten‘tens’. The intense love of God which the Alvar exhibits in expressing hishumble devotion in these verses, couched in the most lovable and movingterms, can only be compared with that exhibited by Tondaradippodi Alvar inhis Tirumalai; and certainly these two works excel each other in their choicediction and fineness of expression.

Even as a ruler Kulasekhara was fond of the Ramayana and the twoshrines of Srirangam and Tiruvengadam. In the 1st verse of the 3rd ‘ten’ hedeclares that he is not going to be one with the wold, which professes whatis unreal to be real. In the 4th ‘ten’ which is solely devoted to Vengadam,he expresses the idea that he would rather be a campaka tree or a fish ina streamlet on the Vengadam hills, or a menial servant or a doorstep in theVengadam temple, rather than be a king. The first three ‘tens’ are devotedto Srirangam to which shrine Kulasekhara was particularly attached. Inverse I of the first ‘ten’ he exclaims:

“When are my eyes going to see, in great glee, Peria Perumal ofgraceful form, who resembles a (huge) sapphire, reposing on the beautifulcouch formed by the serpent-king Adisesa (Tiruvanadalvan) of thousandhoods that contain gems of dazzling brightness, in the great shrine ofSrirangam, where the Kavari of clear water is gently rubbing (the pain off)His sacred feet with her hands (i.e., the waves!)” The verse is a fineexample of the poetical skill of the Alvar.

In verse 2 he exclaims: “when shall I, holding the tirumanattun (pillarat the gateway of the sanctum), sing the praise of Ranganatha.” In verse 3he expresses his deep desire to mix himself with the arcakas and offerworship with flowers at the feet of the God at Srirangam. While expressingthe same idea in the next verse he calls Srirangam the resort of saints andascetics. In verse 5 he tells us that it was not exclusively a hermitage butwas also inhabited by householders and others; he refers to Srirangam as a‘place containing luxurious storeyed houses, all riches and prakara walls’. Thenext three verses contain beautiful allusions to the Kaveri river and thefertile fields and gardens of Srirangam. In the last two verses he exclaims:‘When shall I see the Perumal and dance in joy and roll myself on the earthin a fit of jubilation! When shall I be one in the gosti of the Srivaisnavas in

the courtyard of Alagiyamanavalan’!

In the second ‘ten’ Kulasekhara expresses his deep administration andrespect for the fervent devotees of God Ranganatha and sings their praise.In verse 3 of this ‘ten’ he says that he would adorn his forehead with themire in the courtyard of the Srirangam temple, formed by the joyful tearsshed by those who sang the praise the God. In verse 5 again there isreference to the prakara walls, this time, ‘the mighty and big prakarawalls’. The remaining verses of the ten are filled with the idea of the Alvarlosing himself in delight over the fervent devotees of the God at Srirangamand their unqualified devotion. In the third ‘ten’, also addressed to the sameGod, he declares his asceticism and expresses his deep sense of hatred forthe materialistic objects.

The Koil-Olugu says that Kulasekhara married his daughter Colavalli (amistake for Cerakulavalli) to God Alagiyamanavalan, repaired the buildingsand walls of the third enclosure, and constructed the Senaivenrantirumantapa in the southwestern corner of that enclosure. The enclosureitself is known as Kulasekharan tiruvidi.6 (KO.p.6.) The Srirangam templehas a shrine for Cerakulavalli.7 (ST.pp.48, 104)

Periyalvar and Andal

A native of Srivilliputtur (Ramnad dt.), Visnucitta or Periyalvardevoted himself with the sacred service of offering flowers and garlands toVisnu, enshrined in the local temple. ‘Goda’ or Andal was his famous foundlingdaughter, the garlands worn by whom were particularly acceptable to theGod; hence her name Sudikkodutta Goda or Goda who offered (garlands) tothe God after herself wearing them.’ The Pandya king of his time, accordingto the hagiologies was Srivallabha, while the Alvar himself refers to him asNedudmaran. It is said that this king held a religious disputation in his courtand that Visnucitta, who won the prize of this disputation (porkilli or goldtied in a cloth), converted the Pandya to Vaisnavism.

The Pandya king of the 8th century, who was converted to Vaisnavism,may be identified with Maravarman Rajasimha I (740-765 A.D.) on theground that his predecessor, who bore the title ‘Maran’ or ‘Maravarman’,was Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman (970-710 A.D.), who was convertedfrom Jainism to Saivism by Sambandar and hence was not a Vaisnava. This issupported by epigraphical evidence too.8 (Madras Museum plates, IA XXIIpp.72-75) The date of the daughter of the Alvar, Andal, has been soughtto be fixed independently from certain astronomical details. The reference

to the simultaneous rise of the Venus and the setting of the Jupiter in thefirst hours of the full moon day in the month of Margali occurring in theTiruppavai (verse 13), yield only one date in the 8th century, viz., the 18thday of December 731 A.D. They also correspond to two days in the years885 and 886 A.D. but it was already shown that such dates in the 9thcentury are too late for the later Alvars.9 (M.Raghava Aiyangar, AlvarkalKalanilai. pp.79-81)

Periyalvar’s work is called ‘Periyalvar Tirumoli’ which includes a groupof 10 benedictory verses, well known as the Tiruppallandu. In this work theAlvar gives out his soulful devotion to God in the form of the fondest love ofthe mother for the frolicks of the babe; here the mother is Yasoda and thebabe Lord Krisna. In the 3rd ‘ten’ of the 3rd centum he regards the Godsat Srirangam and Tiruvengadam as manifestations of Krishna.10 (PeriyaTirumoli 3-3-2-4) In verse 3 of this ‘ten’ Yasoda laments her hard-heartedness in having sent her baby son, Krisna - ‘Madusudana, enshrined inSrirangam, surrounded by big enduring walls and adorned by the Kaveri riverand flower gardens’ - to tend the cows. The 8th, 9th and 10th ‘tens’ of the4th centum are entirely devoted to Srirangam. They are full of referencesto the gardens and the natural beauty of Srirangam, watered by the Kaveri.Verse e1 of the 8th ‘ten’ refers to the ghats of the Kaveri, where bathethe ‘Todavattittuimaraiyor’ or ‘the cleanly dressed Srivaisnavas well-versedin the Vedas’.11 (Todavatti seems to be a corruption of ‘dhautavastra.’)Though this expression generally refers to the Vaisnava brahmins yet it isinteresting to note that a distinct branch of the arcakas of the Srirangamtemple, with duties in the sanctum sanctorum, was known by this name. TheKoil-Olugu refers to them by this name, and also that of Ullurar; perhaps tobegin with both were identical. Verse 2 mentions Srirangam inhabited bySrivaisnavas, who performed Vedic sacrifices and fed their guests. Verse 8again refers to the prakara walls. Verse 2 of the 9th ‘ten’ refers to theSriranga Mahatmya as it mentions Ranganatha reposing in the shrine facingsouth for the sake of Vibhisana. Verse 6 of the 9th ‘ten’ refers toSrirangam as a shrine which throws its effulgence in all directions and whichis inhabited by many Vaisnava devotees, ascetics, risis, nityasuris and peoplefrom the surrounding tracts. From verse 11 we learn that Srirangam hadalready attained fame as a shrine in the south and the north.

Andal, famed for her beauty, was struck with a real passion for theGod at Srirangam, unlike the other Alvars, who could only liked themselvesto a loving young woman; none but God Ranganatha would she marry, andcertainly not a mortal. In a verse of her Nacciyar Tirumoli she declared “If

ever a mortal man were chosen for me, O Cupid, be sure I will lay down mylife”.12 (Nacciyar Tirumoli, 1-5) Ranganatha, who had already chosen her asHis bride, commanded Periyalvar, in his dream, to bring his daughter to Him.The father accordingly took Andal to Srirangam, where we are told theloving devotee became one with the god. Much different from this generalaccount of the Guruparamparais is that of the Divyasuricaritam, whosecentral theme is the marriage of Andal with Ranganatha, which is describedin the right epic fashion just like the marriage of Uraiyurvalli with the sameGod in the Lakshmi Kavyam. The Caritam says that Periyalvar conducted themarriage of his daughter, after obtaining the blessings of Nammalvar, whowas attended by the Alvars Poigai, Bhutam, Pey, Tirumalisai,Tondaradippodi, Kulasekhara and Madurakavi; and that Tirumangaimannan,who waylaid the marriage party consisting of Ranganatha, Andal and others,was converted by the divine bridegroom. It is evident that this kavya makesall the Alvars witness the marriage in order to glorify its theme. Periyalvar,who was left alone returned to Srivilliputtur in great sorrow at theseparation, to which he has given the most pathetic expression in hisverses.13 (Periyalvar Tirumoli, 3-8 (10 vv).

The Tiruppavai and the Nacciyar Tirumoli are the two works of Andal.The former has only 30 stanzas, which are devoted to the performance of aceremonial vrata by the peasant girls, in the early mornings of the month ofMargali, with the young Krisna in the fore. The latter has 14 ‘tens’, in whichshe expresses her passionate love for Visnu. In the 7th ‘ten’, e.g., sheenvies the conch in the left hand of the God because of its close associationwith His lips. Verse 4 of the 11th ‘ten’, which is devoted to Srirangamcontains a reference to the storied houses and prakara walls, of Srirangam,and verse 7 again refers to the mighty enclosing walls.

The Koil-Olugu, which like the Guruparamparai, calls the Pandyacontemporary of Periyalvar Vallabhadevan, says that he gave a lot oftreasure to God Alagiyamanavalan14 (This refers to the procession image ofRanganatha and means ‘the beautiful bridegroom’. The recumbent mortarimage in the sanctum is called Periya Perumal.) of Srirangam as dowry, onthe occasion of the marriage of Andal, the daughter of his teacher, withthe God. It also says that the Pandya erected a shrine at Srirangam forAndal (now called the Veli Andal Sannidhi or the Outer Andal shrine).15(K.O. pp.23-24)

Tondaradippodi Alvar

Vipranarayana alias Tondaradippodi Alvar (Bhaktanghrirenu) was a

Vipranarayana alias Tondaradippodi Alvar (Bhaktanghrirenu) was a

native of Mandangudi, in the Tanjore district. As a great devotee of Visnu,he migrated to Srirangam, pretty early in his life, and devoted himself withthe sacred service of providing garlands of basel and flowers for the use ofthe God.16 (Tirumalai-45) It is said that Devadevi, a courtesan, who waspatronised by the Cola king at Uraiyur, approached this devotee with theset purpose of seducing him from his unerring devotion and finally succeeded.Once her vanity was gratified she no longer cared for poor Vipranarayana,who, however, lingered at her doorstep. The Guruparamparai tells us thatAlagiyamanavalan of Srirangam took pity on him; and the divine pitymanifested itself quite ironically indeed, for the God did not resurrect himfrom his fall, but egged him in his evil course by going to the courtesan’shouse one night and handing over to her a huge gold vessel belonging to thetemple while he represented Himself to be a servant of Vipranarayanabearing his present to her. Thus did God restore to him his dignity in hisfall. The loss of the vessel, however, was found out the next morning, thevessel itself traced and Devadevi imprisoned by the royal servants.Vipranarayana to whom ultimately the crime was attributed, was alsoimprisoned. It was then that he realised his folly and his inner nature coulddiscern the hand of God behind his inexplicable crime. He was subsequentlyreleased when the God informed the king in a dream of His part in thedrama. It was after these trials that Vipranarayana became TondaradippodiAlvar and sang the pieces ‘Tirumalai’ and ‘Tiruppalli-elucci’ both devotedexclusively to Srirangam.

According to the Vaisnava tradition Tondaradippodi Alvar was theyounger contemporary of Tirumangai Alvar. Both the Guruparamparai and theKoil-Olugu say that when Tirumangai Alvar was constructing a prakara wall,the place where Tondaradippodi used to sit and make garlands barred thefurther progress of the wall; that Tirumangai spared the resort ofTondaradippodi and made a deviation in the course of the wall; and that thelatter, out of gratitude for Tirumangai, christened the sickle in his handsArulamari (one of the titles of Tirumangaimannan).

Into the Tirumalai of 45 verses the Alvar has infused all the genuinefervour of a fresh convert to the right conduct; the lowest of the lowlypositions he was in is contrasted with the real and lasting happiness flowingfrom a loving devotion to God. In the opening verses he expresses his scantregard for those materialistic people who do not worship Ranganatha. Hebrings home the point when he says: “Better the dogs eat the food of thosewho will not say (i.e., worship) Tiruvarangam of the beautiful gardens, wherehum the bees, where dance the peacocks, where sing cuckoos, whose tree

tops reach the clouds, and where dwells Ranganathan.17 (Tirumalai-14) Inverse 2 he declares that he would fondly adhere to the loving worship of theGod at Srirangam, ‘whose mouth is like coral and eyes like lotuses,’ and spurneven the rulership of the kingdom of the Gods if it were offered to him. Inthe succeeding verses he falls foul of rank materialism as well as the non-Vaisnava sects of Buddhism, Jainism and Saivism. In verse 16 and Alvar tellsus of his own unholy past and he was resurrected by the beneficent God ofSrirangam. The same autobiographical detail we find mentioned also in verse33. In verse 19 he gives us an accurate picture of the posture and positionof the reclining image of Ranganatha in the sanctum of the temple. It says:“(Not only my heart but even) my body melts when I see the God of the sealike hue reposing on the serpent couch, facing Lanka in the south, with Hisback to the North, His feet extended towards the east and His headpointing to the west”. The next verse describes the chest, the shoulders,the eyes, the lips, the mouth and the beautiful crown of the Ranganathaimage. Verse 23 again exhibits the loving devotion of the Alvar born of hispersonal and intimate association with the God. ‘How can I, the poorest ofthe poor, ever forget the unique posture in which our benevolent LordRanganatha is reposing in Srirangam of beautiful gardens lying in the midst ofthe Kaveri (rivers) fowing on either side’. Verse 29 exemplifies the Vaisnavacanon of object surrender to the divine will in the most touching terms: ‘Iwas not born in one of your holy shrines, I have not served on the ‘devadana’lands, I have no relatives nor friends, I have not been thy devotee. O MostSupreme One, Krisna of the hue of the clouds! I cry in despire; you are mysole protector.’ The next seven verses are replete with this idea of theAlvar, with all his loneliness and disqualifications, crying out for the mercy ofthe God in the profoundest humility. In verse 38 the Alvar tells us thatsaints and ascetics adorned the courtyard of the Srirangam temple. Thatamong such devotees were to be found members of the low castes also andthat worshippers belonging to divers creeds devoted themselves to theservice of Ranganatha without any distinction is clear from verses 42 and43. This has been, especially in its early stages, one of the attractivefeatures of Vaisnavism; and that among the Alvars are to be reckoned awoman, an untouchable, a king, brahmins and others is clear proof thatdistinctions of caste, sex or status did (???????? 18. ST. p. 128-129) notmatter to these saints, whose only qualifications were loving devotion andcomplete self-surrender to God.

The Tiruppalli-elucci, the Alvar’s other work of 11 stanzas is devotedto the waking up of Ranganatha early in the morning. The facts that theAlvar was a supplier of flowers to the temple, and that he sang the

Alvar was a supplier of flowers to the temple, and that he sang the

Tiruppalli-elucci, as well as his own name, Tondaradippodi, go to show beyonddoubt that he was actively engaged in the daily temple ritual, and wasperhaps devoted to doing personal services to the God. In verse 5 the Alvarrefers to Srirangam as the shrine that is worshipped by the Ceylonese king(i.e., Vibhisana), a reference to the Stalamahatmya. In verse 8 he showshis intimate acquaintance with the ritual of singing the aubade and theparaphernalia of the cow, the vessels, the mirror, etc., associated with it.

Tiruppan Alvar

Tiruppan Alvar was so called because he belonged to the low caste ofpanas or wandering bards, playing on the instrument known as yal. He was anative of Uraiyur and great devotee of Visnu enshrined in Srirangam. Fullyconscious of his low birth he did not dare cross the Kaveri into Srirangam,and it was his habit to sing the praise of Ranganatha in soulful melody fromthe river Kaveri. The God, who was struck by his single minded devotion,wanted to take him into His fold and ordered his devout brahmin servant,Lokasaranga Muni to fetch the bard to His presence on his shoulders. TheAlvar, who considered it high sacrilege to step into the shrine, had to yieldto the divine command, and his loving devotion overflowed all bounds when hestood face with the grand object of his dream. In his 10 beautiful versesbeginning with Amalanadipiran he describes to us the image of Ranganatha inexquisite terms of intense love.

In each stanza the Alvar (Yogi-vaha) describes a part of theRanganatha image or its apparel as he saw and enjoyed it. In verse 1 hesays that the ‘lotus like feet of the God of Srirangam surrounded by highwalls’ had entered his eyes, as it were. In the 2nd verse he tells us thathis mind was fully taken up by the ‘gold-laced apparel or pitambara adorningthe legs and abdomen of the God reposing in Srirangam of sweet-smellinggardens’. In the 3rd verse he says that he was deeply impressed by the‘beautiful navel of Visnu from which sprang Brahma’. In the 4th verse hementions with equal zest, ‘the gold belt adorning the belly of the God ofSrirangam, where dance the peacocks to the tune provided by the bees’.The next verse mentions the bejewelled chest of the God, where resides theGoddess, Sri or Lakshmi. In the next verse the Alvar says that he wasresurrected by the God, whose neck swallowed (during the deluge) the entireuniverse with all its contents’. In the next verse he tells us that the coral-like red mouth of the God had appropriated all his thoughts to itself. In thenext verse he declares that ‘the wide and long, and bright and black eyes ofRanganatha, with red streaks’ had turned him mad. In the 9th verse he is

beside himself at seeing such an image as a whole; he says: ‘Alas! Theendless and incomparable beauty of the divine frame, which is of the hue ofthe blue-water-lily’, decorated by countless ornaments of precious metalsand pearls, has robbed away my mental stolidity.’ In the 10th verse he endsby saying that having fed his eyes upon such a dear God - Alagiyamanavalan- he would not look at anything else.

Tirumangai Alvar

Tirumangai (or Parakala) was, to begin with, a petty chieftain ofAlinadu in the Cola country. He loved and married Kumudavalli, the daughterof a Vaisnava physician of Tirunangur, and with her led the life of amunificent householder. Not only did he expend his all but dived his handsdeep into the state-coffers in his enthusiasm for helping the Vaisnavadevotees. The Cola had his erring feudatory arrested, though the latterproved, at first, to be recalcitrant. The Guruparamparai says that he paidoff all the state dues in Kanci by the grace of Visnu. It appears that hebelonged to a family of highway robbers; and on this hereditary professionthe erstwhile chieftain fell back in order to meet the expenses of hisdevotional activities. While he was thus engaged he waylaid a marriageparty, the bridegroom among whom was no other than Visnu(Alagiyamanavalan of Srirangam), who whispered into his ear the sacredmantra and thus converted him into a fervent Vaisnava devotee. ThereuponTirumangai undertook a wide pilgrimage in the course of which he visited avery large number of Vaisnava shrines and sang their praises. TheGuruparamparai also credits him with having won over Tirugnanasambandar,the great Saiva saint, in a religious disputation at Siyali. But theDivyasuricaritam simply says that they met together in a friendly spirit anddeparted. Finally he settled in Srirangam where he actively devoted himselfwith the sacred service of repairs and additions to the temple; and oncemore when his funds dwindled he did not hesitate to rob and plunder in orderto refill his coffers, though for a sacred cause. The prakara wall ofSrirangam which he raised, it is said, owed its existence to the gold image ofthe Buddha in the Buddhist palli at Nagapattinam, which he plundered. Thathe was a chieftain of Alinadu, a valiant commander of a small force of menand horse, a munificent patron of Vaisnava devotees and such detailsregarding his life can be gleaned from his own words. A lists of his title isgiven by himself in one of his verses.19 (Periya Tirumoli 3-4-10)

It was mentioned above that the Vaisnava tradition regard, Tirumangaias the last of the Alvars. In view of the fact that according to the self-

same tradition many of the later Alvars were contemporaries the normalinference would be that this Alvar survived the rest. On the basis of thestatement of the Guruparamparai that there was an interval of 200 yearsbetween the last of the Alvars and the first of the Acaryas and workingfrom the known date of Ramanuja we come to the 8th century forTirumangai. It is significant that the Alvar mentions in his ‘ten’ onParamesvara Vinnagaram the names of three villages, where Nandivarman IIPallavamalla (715-775 A.D.) won victories over his Pandya foe, viz., Mannai,Nelveli and Kalidurgam.20 (Ibid. 2-9-3-, 5 and 8) The victories arereferred to as past events. In some of his verses the Alvar hints at hisgrowing old age.21 (The ‘tens’ on Badari and Tirunaraiyur.) His prodigioustours and compositions are in themselves fairly strong testimony to his fairlylong life. It is likely that the Alvar was living in the last years of the reignof the Pallava king mentioned above or perhaps survived him.22 (For detailsof the controversial points, e.g., the contemporaneity of Tirumangai withSambandar, see M.Raghava Aiyangar (op.cit.pp.84-153); Dr.S.KrishnaswamiAiyangar on the date of Tirumangai Alvar (IA. XXXV. Pp.228 ff.); SenTamil vols.III (p.483), IV (p.61) and XXI (pp.5-6); Tamil Varalaru byK.S.Srinivasa Pillai, (pp.137-143) )

Next to Nammalvar Tirumangai Alvar is the most prolific contributorto the 4,000 verses that go to make up the Prabandam collection. The formand content of his Periya Tirumoli resemble in a very large measure those ofthe Tiruvaimoli of Nammalvar, and it is the orthodox view that his six works,viz., Periya Tirumoli, Tirukkurundandagam, Tirunedundandagam,Tiruvelukkurrirukkai, Periya Tirumaalai and Siriya Tirumaalai form theauxiliaries of the four works of Nammalvar just as there are six Vedangasfor the four Vedas. The ideas of absolute self-surrender and loving devotionto God flow more or less in the same channels as in the Tiruvaimoli. Heresembles Tondaradippodi Alvar when he confesses his own past sins and begsfor divine grace in the profoundest humility. It is clear from his works thathe visited a very large number of Vaisnava shrines, to each of which hededicated a ‘ten’ or more in his Periya Tirumoli.

Tirumolis 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the 5th centum of the above work areexclusively devoted to Srirangam. Each of the ten verses of the 4th Tirumolidescribes an achievement of Visnu in the first two lines and the naturalbeauty of His shrine surrounded by the rivers and gardens in the next.These verses very much resemble those of Tirumalisai Alvar in theTiruccandaviruttam, referring to Srirangam. In verse 5 of this Tirumolithere is a reference to the prakara walls. Verse 7 refers to Srirangam

‘fragrant with the scent of the smoke issuing, on the one hand, from the tallhouses, where are burnt the scented wood like the ‘aghil’, etc., and, on theother, from the sacrificial fires kindled by the Vedic brahmanas’, thustestifying to the fact that Srirangam was active and much advanced in boththe secular and religious spheres. Verse 9 again refers to the prakara walls.The 5th Tirumoli is concerned with the familiar theme of the mothersympathising with her lovelorn daughter. Here the Alvar exclaims that themadness caused in the maiden by the God or Tiruvarangam could notadequately explained. Verse 5 is typical of the rest. These verses againresemble those of Nammalvar handling the same theme with reference toSriranganatha. In each verse of the 6th Tirumoli the Alvar describes anachievement of Visnu, in one of His avatars and says that he saw Him atTennarangam. The Tirumolis 7 and 8 are likewise taken up by an enumerationof the qualities and achievements of Visnu enshrined in Srirangam.

According to the Vaisnava tradition Tirumangai Alvar madearrangements for the recitation of Tiruvaimoli in the Srirangam temple. TheKoil-Olugu tells us much about the connections of Tirumangai Alvar with theSrirangam temple. It says that while Tirumangai was residing at SrirangamMadurakavi was glorifying the name of his departed guru Nammalvar byinstalling his image at Tirunagari and conducting many festivals for him andwas also going over to the Srirangam temple often to look after its affairs(Srikaryam). During a certain Tirukkartikai Mahatsava Tirumangai sang theTirunedundandagam and his other works in the presence of the Perumal andthe Nacciyar (goddess), illustrating them with gestures (abhinaya). ThePerumal, who was mightily pleased with the Alvar, asked him what He coulddo for him. To this the Alvar replied that it was his great desire that Hshould hear both the Vedas and the Tiruvaimoli of Nammalvar recited on thenext Adyayanotsava days23 (i.e., ekadasi of the suklapaksa or bright halfof the moth of Margali.) and grant the Tiruvaimoli a place of equality withthe Vedas. The Perumal immediately granted the latter request and agreedto hear the recitations. A divine communication or Tirumugappattaiyam wassent to Tirunagari informing Nammalvar of the Perumal’s intention.Consequently Madurakavi left Tirunagari along with the image of his guru andreached Srirangam on the day preceding that of the Adyayanotsava. He waswelcomed by Tirumangai Alvar and others. When Nammalvar was taken intothe sanctum of the temple the Perumal welcomed him and called him ‘Nam-Alvar’ or ‘our Alvar’. This name stuck and gradually replaced his proper nameSatakopa. Under the commands of the Perumal the image of Nammalvar washoused in the shrine of Tirukkuralappan, which was previously serving as asandhya-matam.24 (K.O.p.10) With the next dawn commenced the

sandhya-matam.24 (K.O.p.10) With the next dawn commenced the

festivities of the Tiruadyayanotsava in the Alagiyamanavalan-tirumantapa ofthe temple. While the Veda were recited in the daytime Madurakavi,representing his guru recited the Tiruvaimoli during the nights; and theserecitations continued for ten consecutive days and nights. On the 10th day,when both the recitations were brought to a close, the Perumal seatedNammalvar on His own seat, did him such other high honours and sent himback to Tirunagari along with many presents. Madurakavi and Tirumangai tookthe image of Nammalvar to Tirunagari with great eclar. The Koil-Olugu saysthat thenceforth the image was brought over to Srirangam from Tirunagarfor every annual Adyayana festival. From the same account it is know thatRamanuja discontinued this practice and installed an image of Nammalvar inthe Srirangam temple.

Secondly the name of Tirumangai Alvar is prominently associated withsome structural additions to the Srirangam temple. The 4th outer enclosureis called after him Alinadan tiruvidi. Both the Divyasuricaritam and the Koil-Olugu speak of his building activities. The caritam says thatTirumangaimannan who did not find enough funds to finish the construction ofthe third Prakara wall that had been left incomplete, hit upon the plan ofplundering the Buddhist Palli at Nagapattinam. From the treasure so derivedhe not only completed the wall but constructed many paddy granaries, thetemple kitchen, walls and gopuras. The golden image of the Buddhist palli,however, did not suffice to meet the expenditure of his ‘six fold Kainkaryas’and ultimately the sculptors and the host of labourers began to clamour fortheir wages. Tirumangai promised to pay them in Tiruvellarai, on northernbank of the Coleroon, and when they were crossing that river in a boat hehad that boat upset and thus found an easy disposal of an otherwise difficultcase with the thought that those unpaid labourers would reach heaven,having lost their lives in divine service.25 (Divyasuricaritam (Tamil translationby Ettayapuram Vidwan Sami Aiyangar Swami) pp.122-138.) This incidenthas already been referred to in connection with the name ‘Kollidam’ and itwas said that it also find mention in the Guruparamparai and thePrappannamrtam. The Koil-Olugu credits the Alvar with the following: (1) A100 pillared mantapa in the northeast of the Rajamahendran enclosure (i.e.,the second enclosure surrounding the sanctum), wherein was to be conductedthe annual Adayayanotsava, (2) the walls of the Kulasekharan enclosure(i.e., the third enclosure surrounding the sanctum) with the northern andsouthern gateways and gopuras, (3) the tirumantapa with its procession pathin the south-west, and the kitchen halls in the south-east of that enclosure,(4) the wall encircling the fourth enclosure with its northern and southerngopuras, and a raised structure and a tower in the northern gopura for

gopuras, and a raised structure and a tower in the northern gopura for

Eduttakai Alagiyasinga Nainar, (5) the store house in the southwest of thefourth enclosure and a granary to its north, and a huge procession pathextending from the south to the north of that enclosure, (6) The flooring ofthe procession path along the fourth enclosure; and (7) the building of theDasavatara temple and the institution of a cremation ghat to its north,which the Alvar named Padiyavalanturai or Tirumangaimannan’s ghat.

Srirangam, an active Vaisnava shrine about the 8th century A.D.

From the references to Srirangam by the Alvars, mostly belonging tothe 8th century, we come to know many points of interest to a historicalaccount of the shrine. It is significant that while the latter Alvars refer tothe Prakara walls we do not find any such reference among the works of theearly Alvars. The various descriptive references made by Kulasekhara Alvarto the reclining image in the sanctum of the Srirangam temple (PeriyaPerumal) adorned with flowers and garlands unmistakably go to show thatactual worship was being conducted in his time by a set of arcakas attachedto the temple. Periyalvar’s references to the Tondavattittuimaraiyor issignificant. Tondaradippodi Alvar’s references to the image and the ideabehind his Tiruppalli-elucci point to the same conclusion. Again TiruppanAlvar’s references to the gold-belt and the pittambara of the sanctum imageleave no doubt that worship was accompanied with the adornment of theimage. Tirumangai Alvar not only contributed largely to the physical growthof the temple but made arrangements for the recitation of the Tiruvaimolitherein. The mention of the courtyard of Alagiyamnayalan, where assembleSrivaisnava devotees of God, ‘the courtyard of the Srirangam temple madesloughy by the tears shed by the hymnists’ and ‘the wandering devotees ofRanganatha preaching the right conduct’ in the verses of Kulasekhara paintsan unfailing picture of a temple already alive as a human institution with thedaily puja, etc. being conducted in the sanctum and the singing of devotionalpieces by groups of Srivaisnavas in the courtyard, a picture of the SouthIndian Vaisnava temple of the 8th century. Add to these the references toascetics thronging the shrine and the wealthy householders living in storiedhouses, evidently inside the prakara walls, and we see raised before us animage of the temple city of the same period.

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORYCHAPTER 4

THE PERIOD OF THE RISE OF THE COLAS

In this chapter are traced the fortunes of theSrirangam temple covering the period from the 10th to the 12th centuries,from A.D.924, the date of the earliest Cola inscription in the temple, toA.D.1178, the close of the reign of Rajadhiraja II, when the Cola declinebegan and the Pandyas rose to power. This was an eventful period in thehistory of the temple. Srirangam became the headquarters of the Vaisnavamovement under the resourceful Acaryas, the greatest of whom wasRamanuja. The latter was both the Vaisnava pontiff and the warden of thetemple. We have numerous inscriptions in the temple of the Cola kings ofthis period detailing their gifts and benefactions. They do not throw anydirect light on the activities of the Acaryas, for which tradition as recordedin the Guruparamparai is the only source. In this period the temple grew inorganisation, wealth and resources.

Cola inscriptions in the temple of the 10th century A.D.

The earliest Cola inscription in the Srirangam temple is dated in the17th year of Parantaka I (A.D.907-955). It registers a gift of 30 goldpieces for a permanent lamp, 40 for camphor, one for cotton wick besidesthe gift of a silver lamp-stand made to the temple. The Sabha ofTiruvarangam took charge of the endowments. The donor was one SankaranRanasingan.1 (72 of 1892; SII.IV.519.) The next inscription is dated in the38th year of the same king and it registers a gift of 100 Kalanju of god forthe Tirumanjanam (holy bath) of Sriranganatha by the Sahasradarai (‘1000holed’) plate. The donor was one Pallavaraiyan. This gift too was entrustedto the Sabha of Tiruvarangam.2 (71 of 1892; SII.IV.518.) Anotherinscription of this king dated in his 41st year records a gift of two plots ofland by a certain Acciyan Bhattan Sri Vasudevan Cakrapani of Peruvengur (inVila-nadu) for cake offerings to the God of Srirangam on the ekadasi dayduring the Panguni festival in the temple.3 (95 of 1936-37.)

The Anbil plates of Parantaka II or Sundara Cola, who reigned fromA.D.956 to A.D.973, record the grant of land which the king made to aBrahmana minister of his called Aniruddha, a native of Premagriha (Anbilnear Srirangam).4 (E1.XV.pp.44 ff.; K.A.Nilakanta Sastri The Colas (II

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a yHistats

edn.) p.149) The plates say that the donee came of a family of greatdevotees of Ranganatha of Srirangam and refer to the particular attachmentof his mother and grandfather to the God. The next record is dated in the15th year of Uttama Cola (A.D.984) and registers a gift of gold bySridharan Kumaran, a Malayali of Ravimangalam in Valluva-nadu, a subdivisionof Melai-nadu, for providing a lamp with ghee and with Bhimaseni-karpuramin front of the God of Srirangam (Tiruvarngattu Perumanadigal.5 (65 of1938-39) The practice of burning lamps with ghee, with camphor dissolved init, mentioned here, is noteworthy. Three fragmentary records of Rajaraja I(A.D. 985-1014) record gifts of gold to the temple, the details of whichare lost.6 (341-343 of 1917-18.)

Rajamahendra Cola, a benefactor of the temple

The name of Rajamahendra is prominently associated with theSrirangam temple as the builder of the second prakara wall and the secondenclosure itself is known as Rajamahendran tiruvidi. Who is thisRajamahendra? He is not to be identified with Mahendravarman Pallava aswas sought to be done by K.V.Subrahmanya Aiyar7 (IA.XL.p.134.) but withRajamahendra Rajakesari, son of Rajendra II (1052-1064).8 (K.A.NilakantaSastri: The Colas (II edn.) p.247.) He was a crown-prince and predeceasedhis father in 1063. It is quite likely that he was acting as the regent atthe capital while his father was engaged in the distant wars with theCalukyas. That he was carrying on the peaceful administration of the countryis attested by the Kalingattupparani as well as his prasastis. The Koil-Olugu,which wrongly places Rajamahendra Cola before Koil-Olugu, which wronglyplaces Rajamahendra Cola before Tirumangai Alvar,9 (This is obviouslybecause Rajamahendra Cola is associated with the first prakara andTirumangai with the third.) says that he laid the pavement of the sanctumthus putting a stop to water oozing on to the surface whenever there werefloods in the Kaveri and constructed the second prakara wall, and that thesecond enclosure is known after him. This tradition finds confirmation in theVikramasolan Ula, composed by Ottakkuttan, who lived during the reigns ofVikrama Cola, Kulottunga II and Rajaraja II. In this work the poet saysthat Rajamendra made for the God at Srirangam a serpent couch set withseveral gems, but makes no mention of the construction of a prakara wall bythe Cola. Whatever be the discrepancy between these two traditionsregarding the benefactions there is no mistaking the fact that thebenefactor in question was none other than Rajamahendra Cola.

The First Acaryas

In the period of the first great Colas the Vaisnava Acaryas,particularly Ramanuja, were quite active in Srirangam. These saints areusually placed in two groups, viz., the Acaryas from Nathamuni to Ramanujaand those who succeeded Ramanuja. It was stated above that according toVaisnava tradition there was an interval of about 200 years between thelast of the Alvars and the first of the Acaryas. During this interval theprabandas of the Alvars are said to have fallen into oblivion. The Koil-Oluguindicates that subsequent to the good days in which the Perumal ofSrirangam heard every year the Tiruvaimoli recitations inaugurated byTirumangai Alvar bad days followed in which the prabandas fell intoobscurity, religious classes and discourses had ceased and Nammalvar nolonger came to Srirangam all the way from Tirunagari to hear the Tiruvaimolirecited. What is the explanation of this interval of obscurity and inanition ofVaisnavism? During this period, i.e., roughly from the 8th century to the10th we do not find in South India any remarkable social or political upheavalthat might have told adversely upon the peaceful religious pursuits of theVaisnava teachers in temples. It was the period of Cola ascendaneysubsequent to the decline of the Pallavas and the Pandyas. The interval ofreligious decadence,’ it would be seen, is purely a fiction created by thelatter day hagiographer who wanted to tell a continuous tale and hence hadto offer some sort of explanation for a period in which no saint flourished.After Tirumangai Alvar, who lived in the 8th century, the next importantVaisnava teacher, viz., Nathamuni came in the 10th century and it is futileto find an explanation for this gap.

Nathamuni and Srirangam

Nathamuni, the son of Isvara Bhatta, was a Vaisnava devotee ofTirunarayanapuram or Kattumannar Koil (South Arcot district) and wasengaged in serving Visnu enshrined in the local temple. There he heard fromsome brahmanas from the west (i.e. Kerala) a ‘ten’ from the Tiruvaimolibeginning with Aravamudu. At Tirunagari he heard the ten verses beginningwith Kanninunciruttambu, sung by Madurakavi in praise of Nammalvar. Anxiousto get the entire Tiruvaimoli and not finding anyone who knew the whole byheart he did penance invoking Nammalvar for a long time. To reward his yogaNammalvar appeared before him and gave him not only a kosa or copy of hiswork, the Tiruvaimoli, but those of all the other Alvar and initiated him intothe Vaisnava darsana. The gradual disappearance of the prabandas and theirsudden reappearance through the efforts of Nathamuni need not be takenseriously. According to the Vaisnava tradition Nathamuni first collectedtogether the various Prabandas of the Alvars and made arrangements for

their recitations in the Srirangam temple; and it will be easily seen that theorthodox account of his yogic feat is nothing but an exaggeration of his realand substantial work in connection with the Vaisnava anthology theNalayirapprabandam.

Adhering to the Vaisnava tradition of an interval of 200 yearsbetween the disappearance of the Prabandas and their reappearance we getthe 10th century as the age in which Nathamuni must have flourished. Kali3924 or A.D.823, the date given by the Koil-Olugu for the birth ofNathamuni, has to be rejected because it brings him very near the Alvarsand hence contradicts the above traditions.

Referring to the activities of Nathamuni in Srirangam the Koil-Olugusays that he organised regular classes in which he expounded the import ofthe Prabandas and asked his pupils to propagate them in turn. To his goesthe credit of having made the verses of the Nalayirapprabandam a livingforce among the Srivaisnavas by incorporating them into the daily routine ofan orthodox Vaisnava as well as that of a Vaisnava temple. As a resultthese verses, though of considerable antiquity, have come to stay more as areligious institution being recited in gostis in Vaisnava temples by successivegenerations of Bhattas than as a piece of classical literature surviving only inbooks and known only to antiquarians or historians. The Tevaram hymns formthe Saivat counterpart. We are told that Nathamuni fixed the times ofupakarma and utsarjana (i.e. commencement and temporary suspension of therecitation of the sacred hymns) for the Tiruvaimoli, laid down the procedureregarding the recitations etc., to be adopted in the Karthikai festival andthe Adyayanotsava, grouped the various prabandas into the Mudalayiram,Iyarpa, etc., and counted them to be 4,000, and made arrangements forrecitations of the other Tirumolis over and above the Tiruvaimoli, in what iscalled the Tirumoli festival created by him. Nathamuni himself recited theseverses, illustrating them with gestures, during the Tirumoli and Tiruvaimolifestivals, and trained his two nephews Kilaiyagattalvan andMelaiyagattalvan10 (These names mean ‘Alvan of the eastern house’ and‘Alvan of the western house’, respectively) to sing and dance like himselfduring those festivals. These two began the line of the successive Arayar ofthe Srirangam temple with distinct duties and appropriate honours in thepresence of God during festivals. The practices regarding the recitations ofthe Prabandas started by Nathamuni in the Srirangam temple were followedin other Vaisnava temples. Srirangam was rapidly becoming the accreditedheadquarters of the Vaisnava movement in South India.

Ramanuja and Srirangam

After Nathamuni Uyyakondar and Manakkal Nambi, in succession,exercised control over the Vaisnava darsana from Srirangam. The successorof Manakkal Nambi was Alavandar, the grandson of Nathamuni. The nextpontiff was the great Ramanuja. The Guruparamparai credits him with a longlife of 120 years, from S.939 (indicated by the chronogram dhirlabda) orA.D. 1017 to S 1059 (dharmonasta) or A.D.1137.

Ramanuja was born at Sriperumbudur, near Madras. From his nativeplace he migrated, as a lad, to Tirupputkuli, near Kanci, to prosecute hisstudies in the Vedanta under one Yadavaprakasa. As the studies advanceddifferences developed between the teacher and his precocious pupil and thelatter left for Kanci, where he settled down as a householder and devotedhimself to the divine service of supplying water for purposes of puja to theshrine of Devapperumal. Alavandar, who was aware of the talents ofRamanuja, chose him as his successor and sent Periya Nambi to Kanci tofetch him to Srirangam. Alavandar, however, was no more when Ramanujacame to Srirangam, and the later was struck with remorse when he saw thelifeless body of the former stretched on the funeral pyre. In utter despairRamanuja left Srirangam, it would appear, even without worshipping thePerumal enshrined there and returned to Kanci. Subsequently the Vaisnavapreceptors of Srirangam joined together and, with a view to fulfill the desireof Alavandar, once again sent Periya Nambi to Kanci to bring back Ramanuja.Meanwhile Ramanuja had been told by Perarulala Perumal, the God of Kanchi,that Periya Nambi was the guru at whose feet he was to seek spiritualsalvation. Without losing any more time he left Kanci, where they stayedtogether for a short time. During this period domestic quarrels arose andthe teacher quietly left his pupil and returned to Srirangam. Ramanuja, whoknew that his wife was the cause of this upshot, renounced his family andbecame a sanyasin. Immediately disciples flocked round him and the mostimportant of these were Mudaliyandan and Kurattalvan. The Vaisnavas ofSrirangam welcomed this news and this time they sent the Arayar of thetemple, well known as Tiruvarangapperumal Arayar, to fetch Ramanuja totheir shrine. The Arayar succeeded and finally Ramanuja came to Srirangam.The Guruparamparai narrates his entry into the shrine a well as the divinewelcome that was accorded to him in a right orthodox fashion, and thegrandeur of the manipravala style adopted is indeed inimitable. The GodAlagiyamanavalan bestowed upon him the title of Udayavar or ‘possessor’ (ofthe Ubhaya vibhuti aisvaryam, i.e., the wealth consisting of nitya vibhuti oreternal bliss and leela vibhutin or wordly happiness) and asked him to

administer the affairs of the temple.

Reforms in the Temple

From this point the Koil-Olugu begins a long and detailed recital of thereforms introduced and the administrative arrangements made by Udayavarin connection with the affairs of temple, while the Guruparamparai dismissesthese with a few generalised statements. From his gadi in the Ceran mutt inthe north street of the Trivikraman enclosure (i.e., the north Uttarastreet) Udayavar assumed control over the administration of both thedarsana (doctrine) and the temple. He began with a thorough inspection ofthe store-house and the treasury and daily made searching inquiries into theroutine expenditure involved and the rights claimed by the arcakas andothers with duties in the temple. This detailed investigation becameintolerable to some of the temple servants, one of whom coerced his wife toserve poisoned food to Udayavar while on his daily rounds for begging alms.The honest wife obeyed her husband but cleverly indicated to the beggingascetic the nature of the alms by circumambulating him after having partedwith the aims, which was not her usual practice. Udayavar suspectedsomething and threw away the poisoned food. This is mentioned as aninstance and Udayavar had to face considerable opposition to his scheme ofpurification. The Olugu says that consequently he left Srirangam and lived inTiruvellarai for two years. The better sense of the temple servantsultimately prevailed and Tiruvarangapperumal Arayar fetched Udayavar backto Srirangam. Now he had to face the intractable high priest of the temple,Periya Koil Nambi, who would not brook subordination to him or accept hisschemes of reconstruction. Kurattalvan, the devout disciple of Udayavar,was, however, able to bring Periya Koil Nambi to the right path. Nambi nowbecame the fervent disciple of Udayavar, under the name Amudan - wellknown as Tiruvarangattamudanar - and composed the Ramanuja-nurrandadi, acentum in praise of Ramanuja. He also surrendered his office as high priestand his exclusive right to read out the puranas in the temple to Udayavar.The latter had to face no more troubles and he executed his plan ofreconstruction unhindered. The following is a summary of the reforms andadministrative arrangements effected by him.

(1) He appointed Akalanga Nattalvan, his disciple, to inquire into the incomesfrom the temple lands. The latter was a Cola chieftain, who is said to havebecome a disciple of Udayavar after his return from Tiruvellarai. TheNattalvan or Nadalvan is mentioned in several records of the time ofRajadhiraja II (acc.1163) and Kulottunga III (acc.1178) under the name

Virrirundan Seman.11 (20 of 1937-38, pt.II, para 41; 267-269 of 1926-30, pt.II, para 24; and 73 and 275 of 1936-37, pt.II, page 71.) If hehad been actually a disciple of Udayavar he must have long survived him. Itis also likely that the chronicler of the Olugu made the local chieftain adisciple of Udayavar to glorify the Acarya.

(2) The shrine of Dhanvantri, which had long been neglected and gone out ofuse, was renovated and an image of Dhanvantri or the Divine Physician wasinstalled therein, taking advantage, it is said, of a slight indisposition of theGod caused by the offering of naval or jambu fruits and curd rice byMudaliyandan. He placed his disciple Garudavahana Bhatta in charge of theshrine and made arrangements for the supply of milk and medicinal decoction(kasaya) to the God every night. The institution of the Arogyasala or theDhanvantri shrine is even now remembered as one of the chief reforms ofUdayavar in the Srirangam temple. From his days the successive managersof this shrine have been known by the title of Garudavahana Bhatta.11a (Aninscription of Kulottunga I (62 of 1892; SII. III.70) refers to ArayanGarudavahan alias Kalingarayar.)

(3) He removed all the Vaikhanasa priests from the temple and firmlyestablished the system of worship described in the Parameswara samhita ofthe Pancaratra agama. He created a new set of priests known as BhagavataNambis.

(4) The condition of the different seals, viz. The Garuda seal and the seals ofthe Discus (Cakra) and the Conch (Sankha), under whose authority manyrights were exercised, and the state of accounts of the temple were foundto be in great disorder. Udayavar caused a reshuffling of the ownership ofthese seals; he kept the seal of the Discus to himself, left the seal of theConch under the control of the Bhagavata Nambis, and allowed the Garudaseal to continue under the Talaiyiduvar or Stanattar. He also reorganisedthe accounts and placed them under the control of two persons with distinctduties.

(5) The most important reform he effected was the complete reorganisation ofthe temple services and groups of temple servants. Before the days ofUdayavar all the duties connected with the temple were divided among fivegroups of servants, viz., Kovanavar, Kodavar, Koduvaleduppar, Paduvar andTalaiyiduvar. According to the Koil-Olugu these five groups were in existencebefore the days of Tirumangaimannan.12 (KO.p.46-7) Having in mind,perhaps, the rapidly growing volume of the temple services Udayavar dividedthese into 10 main groups of Brahmana servants and 10 groups of Sudra

these into 10 main groups of Brahmana servants and 10 groups of Sudra

servants. Three other groups were also created and their duties fixed. Theentire scheme came to be well known as Udayavar tittam.

(6) Certain important changes and additions were made in the procedure andconduct of the annul adyayanotsava that added much lustre to the festivalas a whole. From the days of Tirumangai Alvar it was the custom for thetemple parijanas to fetch Nammalvar from the distant Tirunagari to witnessthe Tiruvaimoli and other recitations during the above festival. Takingadvantage of the impossibility of bringing Nammalvar from Tirunagari on acertain Adyayanotsava, perhaps due to heavy floods in the Kaveri, Udayavarinstalled the image of Nammalvar in the Srirangam temple and stopped theprocedure of bringing the Alvar all the way from Tirunagari.

(7) He also installed in the temple the images of the Alvars, Andal andNathamuni and made arrangements for the celebration of many festivities intheir honour like taking them in procession to the Perumal on the days oftheir natal asterims.

(8) He laid down extensive regulations with regard to the recitations of theDivyaprabandas and in this he seems to have followed largely the lead ofNathamuni. In his days a new addition was made to the Prabandamcollections and that was the Ramanuja-nurrandadi of 108 stanzas.

(9) He instituted a huge cattleshed in Solanganallur, on the northern bank ofthe Coleroon, for the supply of milk to the temple. He also installed therethe image of Krisna as guarandian deity. He had a small gosala or cowshederected in the south-eastern corner of the Citra street, where he stationeda few cows, so that milk may be had if required suddenly for purposes ofworship, etc.

(10) He had the daily routine of temple worship conducted strictly according tothe injunctions of the Pacaratra Agama; made detailed arrangements for thecelebrations of all festivities for the Perumal and the Alvars, and conductedthe daily, fortnightly, monthly, annual, and the great utsavas or mahotsavaswith grandeur and thus glorified the name of Srirangam.

Meanwhile Udayavar had fully equipped himself with the Sastras andscriptures the Vedanta and the Vaisnava darsana as the disciple of oldveterans in the field like Tirukkottiyur Nambi, Tirumalaiyandan,Tiruvarangapperumal Arayar, Tirumalai Nambi and others. Then heproceeded to commit to writing his own interpretations of the Vedic texts

proceeded to commit to writing his own interpretations of the Vedic texts

based on the Vaisnava doctrine-the Visistadvaita-and his explanations ofthat doctrine. With the help of Kurattalvan he wrote down his monumentalworks, viz. The Sribhasyam, the Vedanta Dipam, the Vedanta-saram andthe Gita Bhasyam. Having achieved so far the guru wanted to commence atour of religious disputation - a digvijaya - and establish the supremacy ofthe Vaisnava doctrine in all directions. With the permission of Periya Perumal(the mula beram) of Srirangam he appointed Mudaliyandan to exercisesupreme control over the affairs of the temple, and started on such a tourin the company of Kurattalvan. The Guruparamparai credits him with a tourof all India. When he came to Tirupati there was dispute raging in thatshrine whether the God there was Visnu or Skanda. Udayavar appeared asthe arbiter and decided the case in favour of the Vaisnavas. Then hereturned to Srirangam, where he settled down once more as the head of theVaisnava darsana. Quite pleased with the way in which Mudaliyandan hadlooked after the temple during his absence he reappointed him in the positionof supreme command over the temple affairs. “Thus was Udayavarsuperintending and controlling the temple administration and the Vaisnavadoctrine for 60 caturmasas in the sacred shrine of Tiruvarangam, himselfbeing worshipped by 70 jiyas, 12,000 ekangis, 74 Acarya purusas andinnumerable Srivaisnavas.”13 (KO.p.104)

The Cola persecution and retreat into the Hoysala country

The peaceful life of Ramanuja in Srirangam was disturbed when theCola king, with a strong partiality for Saivism, insisted on Ramanuja and hisfollowers subscribing to the doctrine “there is none greater than Siva” -Sivat parataram nasti. Ramanuja felt his position in Srirangam unsafe andhence betook himself to the west. i.e. Mysore. In this period the Mysorecountry had just been freed by the Hoysalas from the Cola hold and it isnatural that the Vaisnava teacher should have gone there for asylum. PeriyaNambi and Kurattalvan, who represented their Acarya in the royal court,upheld the supremacy of Visnu, but the Cola was not prepared forarguments. He compelled them to write down Sivat paratarm nasti.Kurattalvan wrote it down but immediately beneath it also wrote Drona mastitatah param, meaning ‘drona is greater than Siva,’ thus punning upon theword Siva, which means both the God Siva and a small measure, drona beinga bigger one. This was intolerable to the Cola and he ordered Periya Nambiand Kurattalvan to be blinded. The aged Periya Nambi could not bear thetorture and he died. Kurattalvan, who survived, retired to Tirumalirumsolai.Ramanuja stayed in the Mysore country for 12 years, enjoying according tothe Vaisnava tradition, royal favour. He was staying in Tirunarayanapuram or

Melkote with his 52 devout disciples when news was brought from Srirangamby Maronrilla Maruthi Ciriyandan that the persecuting Cola, dubbedKrimikantha Cola, was no more. This enabled Ramanuja to return toSrirangam.

Kulottunga I (1070-1120 A.D.)

Krimikantha Cola is generally identified with Kulottunga I (1070-1120A.D.14 (See K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, Colas. Pp.295-96, 300, and 644, fordifferent views.) Some scholars would prefer to identify him withAdhirajendra, who had a short reign of less than a year (in 1070) and whowas killed in the course of a popular uprising. But according to Vaisnavatradition Ramanuja lived as an exile in the Mysore country for 12 years atthe close of which he returned to Srirangam on hearing of the death ofKrimikantha. Adhirajendra did not rule for 12 years, and it is a sheerimpossibility to crowd the many achievements of Ramanuja in exile into theshort period of less than a year of the reign of Adhirajendra. If on thisground the identification of Krimikantha with Kulottunga I is correct the dateof the return of Ramanuja to Srirangam is to be placed round about 1120A.D.

Though it is true to say that the Cola monarchs were ardent patronsof Saivism it need not be concluded from this nor from the account of thepersecution of Ramanuja that there was a general persecution of theVaisnavas and the Vaisnava temples in the Cola period. From the Colainscriptions we know that they extended their patronage to both the Saivaand Vaisnava temples. But kings were often victims to advisers and favouritedogmas and sometimes the rule of general toleration was broken. There areseveral inscriptions of Kulottunga I in the Srirangam temple.15 (61 of 1892,SII. IV, 508, 62 of 1892; SII. III.70, and 117-127 & 129-132 of1938-39 (ARE); also pt.II. para 18.) One mentions the king by his title,Jayadhara, and his minister Vanadhiraja, who figure as the donor.16 (56 of1938-39.) Another, dated in his 13th year, refers to SenapatiVirarajendra Adiyaman, who made a gift of land for a flower garden to thetemple.17 (118 of 1938-39) Two more military officers of the king figureas donors in other records. One is Arigandadevan Ayarkolundinar aliasSenapatigal Ganagikondasola-Munaiyadarayar of Kottur in ArumolidevaValanadu, who figures as the donor of a flower garden, named after him.The same person also donated a lamp.18 (123 of 1938-39.) The other wasSenapatigal Vira Cola Munaiyadarayar, who made a grant of 50 kalanju ofgold for the recitation of the Tiruppalli-elucci and Tiruvaimoli by five

nimantakaras (temple servants).19 (61 of 1892.) This epigraph is dated inthe king’s 15th year. Another epigraph, dated in his 18th year, records theprovision of 6 ! kasu (gold pieces) made by Arayan Garudavahan aliasKalingarayar for offerings on three nights when the text Tettarundiral20(The second ‘ten’ of the Perumal Tirumoli by Kulasekhara Alvar begins withthese words.) was recited during the festivals in the months of Aippasi andPanguni. The Malyala officers of the king, belonging to the Perudanam andsirudanam, made a gift of a chauri called Ayiravan (with a gold handle) forservice to God Anantanarayanaswamin, who “was pleased to recline atSrirangan”.21 (130 of 1938-39.) It is significant that a number of generalsand officers of Kulottunga I figure as the donors of the Srirangam temple.This is unlikely if the king had been a Saiva fanatic.

In the present state of our knowledge and with the traditional accountof the Guruparamparai as the basis we can only conclude that the persecutorof Ramanuja was not Adhirajendra but Kulottunga I. It was the audaciousstatement of Kurattalvan, who made a joke of the dictum of the king, viz.,Sivatparataram nasti that was perhaps responsible for the blinding order.Ramanuja felt himself unsafe and so he left the Cola territory altogether.For aught we know even the blinding of Kurattalvan might have been ahagiographical invention, for the Guruparamparai tells us that the Alvanregained his eyesight later on through divine beneficence. There is goodreason to believe that the account of persecution is highly exaggerated.

Vikrama Cola (1120-1133)

From inscriptions we know that Vikrama Cola spent a large part of thestate revenues derived in 1128 A.D. upon the Cidambaram temple by way ofstructural additions and sumptuous benefactions. Nataraja of Cidambaramwas his family deity. The Koil Olugu says that the same king constructed the5th prakara wall of the Srirangam temple, with its gateways and gopuras.The following are also attributed to him.

(1) A gosala or cowshed and a shrine for Krishna in the northeast of the 5thenclosure, (2) a shrine for Rama in the southwest. (3) a shrine for Nacciyarin the northwest, and (4) an installation of Garuda in the Peria Tirumantapain the 4th or Alinadan enclosure. The 5th enclosure of the temple is knownas Akalangan Tiruvidi, Akalangan being a title of Vikrama Cola. There is nodirect epigraphic confirmation of the above account. The Srirangam temple,however, contains a single inscription of Parakesarivarman alias TribhuvanaVikrama Coladeva dated in his 16th year (1134 A.D.) A high regnal year notmet with in other inscriptions of his.22 (33 of 1936-37; pt.II para 71

met with in other inscriptions of his.22 (33 of 1936-37; pt.II para 71

(Vikrama Cola was crowned in 1118 A.D. when his father, Kulottunga I, wasalive). This simply records a private gift of land and throws no light on theking’s interest in the temple. Yet it is significant to note that ‘VikramaColacaturvedimangalam’ is mentioned in a few inscriptions of the laterPandyas in the temple in connection with the formation of the colony called‘Kaliyugarama-caturvedimangalam’, in the neighbourhood of Srirangam.23 (42,43, 44 and 47 of 1936-73.)

The Koil-Olugu says that the son of Krimikantha Cola was a well-meaning monarch. Even while his father was contemplating to persecute theVaisnavas he tried to dissuade him from his evil intents but failed. After thedeath of his father whose acts he very much repented, he came to theSrirangam temple with the Cera and Pandya kings and made consultationswith them in the following strain: ‘Temples and their endowments have alwaysbeen governed by Brahmanas and there had been no royal encroachments. MYfather, who violated this rule, suffered terribly. Even now I will call backUdayavar and in your presence hand over to him the entire authority overthe temple’. Sending Maronrilla Marathiyandan to fetch back Udayavar thethree kings returned to their respective cities. When the envoy returnedwith Udayavar the Cola24 (The KO calls this Cola by the name Kulottunga(p.108), probably a generic name for the kings of the dynasty ofKulottungaI.) rushed to Srirangam, handed over to Udayavar the control ofthe temple and registered the transfer in a dana sasana or deed of gift.When he begged for a discipleship at the feet of the Acarya, the latterwillingly made him the disciple of his own disciple, Mudaliyandan to whom hetransferred the control of the temple, which had so long been administeredfrom the palace. The Koil Olugu ends this account by saying that Udayavarcaused these details to be inscribed on the wall of the Aryabhattalgateway.25 (KO.pp.107-8) The Guruparamparai and the Divyasuricaritamgive no such account of a patronising Cola. It is not possible to justify thisstory on epigraphical grounds.

Kulottunga II (1133-1150)

Kulottunga II, like his father, devoted his energies to the remodelingand renovation of the Nataraja shrine at Cidambaram. Both his inscriptionsand the Kulottunga-Colan Ula of Ottakootar make prominent mention of hisactivities on behalf of this shrine. In his zeal for Saivism he removed, in thelanguage of the Ula, the little God (Visnu) from the courtyard of the sacredhall of Tillai.26 (Kulottunga-Colan Ula.11. 77-8) According to the Vaisnavatradition Ramanuja heard of the desecration of the Govindaraja shrine at

Cidambaram, after he had returned from the Mysore country toSrirangam.27 (The Koil-Olugu, however, says that Ramanuja installed theGovindaraja image at Tirupati while he returned to Srirangam from Mysore.This cannot be true if it is held that the Acarya returned to Srirangam soonafter the death of Kulottunga I. See KO.p.210-1. The descration, then,has to be taken to the period before Kulottunga II, which goes against theevidence of Ottakkootar.) He immediately proceeded to Tirupati, whitherthe Vaisnavas of Cidambaram had escaped with the image of Govindaraja,and installed it in a shrine there by the side of the older shrine ofParthasarathy, whose image had become mutilated and hence unfit forworship. The earliest record of Kulottunga II, which makes specific mentionof his activities at Cidambaram, comes from Tiruppurambiam and is dated inhis 7th year, i.e., 1140. The desecration of its image and its reconsecrationin a newly built shrine at Tirupati may roughly be assigned to this date.

Ramanuja returned from Tirupati via Kanci to Srirangam, where hecontinued to administer the Vaisnava darsana for some time at the end ofwhich he ‘left this for the abode of Visnu’. His death occurred probably in1150, as the restoration of the Govindaraja image in a shrine in Tirupati isaccording to all accounts the last important event in his life. Roughly thenRamanuja’s life extended over the century 1050-1150. If we strictlyadhere to the traditional dates for the birth and death of Ramanuja, viz.,1017 and 1137 it is doubtful whether it would be possible to accommodatethe reconsecration of the Govindaraja image as also a period of peacefuladministration of the darsana from Srirangam subsequent to it betweenthese two dates.

An inscription of Kulottunga II in the Srirangam temple, dated in his11th year, register and endowment of land after purchase (from the templeitself) for a flower-garden by three private individuals, who also madeadditional gifts of money for the maintenance of five gardeners.28 (55 of1936-37.) Another inscription in the temple dated in his 7th year purportsto be an order issued by the deity leasing the temple lands to the‘Kovanavar’ who were to plant coconut and area palms thereon and to payannually a specific part of the yield to the temple.29 (57 of 1936-37)

Rajadhiraja II (1163-1178)

Kulottunga II was succeeded by Rajaraja II (1150-1173), and thelatter by Rajadhiraja II (acc.1163) who ruled upto 1178. There are twoinscriptions of this king in the Srirangam temple.30 (63 and 73 of 1936-37)They record gifts of money to the temple, one for a lamp and the other for

They record gifts of money to the temple, one for a lamp and the other for

the expenditure involved in the conduct of certain festivals. The donorfiguring in the latter is one Virrirundan Seman alias TirukkuraivalarttaAkalanga Nadalvar of Tiruttavatturai (Lalgudi). The Koil Olugu mentions himas a disciple of Ramanuja.31 (KO.pp.45 & 55) The donor figuring in theformer epigraph was one Perumal alias Rajaraja Uttamasetti, a native ofKurattipattinam in Kaivara-nadu, a subdivision of Poysalanadu, who alsopresented a big forehead jewel (sutti) to the God Periya-Perumal. Both aredated in the 9th year of the king (i.e., 1172).

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORYChapter 5

THE PERIOD OF THE DECLINE OF THE COLAS AND THE REVIVAL OFTHE PANDYAS

In this chapter the fortunes of theSrirangam temple are traced during the period 1178-1310, the former beingthe date of the death of Rajadhiraja II and the beginning of theindependent reign of Kulottunga III and the latter the date of Malik Kafur’sinvasion of Ma’bar. This was the period of the decline of the Cola Empireand the revival of the Pandyas. The Cola Pandya conflict produced disturbedconditions in the Tamil country and they gave a good opportunity forintervention by the neighbouring powers viz., the Hoysalas of Mysore, theCeylonese rulers, the Ceras, the Kakatiyas, and the Eastern Gangas ofOrissa. The Hoysalas came with the ostensible object of helping the Colasagainst the Pandyas and in the course of their intervention acquired acompact territory for themselves in and around Kannanur or Vikramapuri,near Srirangam, which became their subsidiary capital. The Eastern Gangaforces came to fish in the troubled waters and occupied the Srirangamtemple and adversely interfered with its administration. An inscription in thetemple says that they were expelled by the forces of Maravarman SundaraPandya I in 1225 and that normalcy was then restored. But for this incidentand until the Muslim attacks of Malik Kafur in 1310-11 and GhiyasuddinTughlak in 1323 the temple did not suffer in any way from the politicalupheavals of the day. On the other hand the new powers that hadsuperimposed themselves over the Colas extended their patronage to theSrirangam temple as lavishly as they could in an attempt to outdo theirpredecessors in this regard. A long Sanskrit record of Jatavarman SundaraPandya I on the walls of the temple runs into raptures over his numerousbenefactions, which included the gold plating of the vimana and setting up animage of the God made of gold to “the tip of the nails”. The Hoysalas werealso rich benefactors and a few additions were made to the temple in thecourse of their rule from Kannanur. Though their political power was wantingthe Colas continued their patronage of the temple as attested by theirnumerous inscriptions. The temple had reached its highest point of wealthand influence before it was desecrated and impoverished by the Muslim raidsof 1310-1311 and 1323.

In religious matters Srirangam continued to be the headquarters of

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a yHistats

Vaisnavism in South India, and the successors of Ramanuja were bothVaisnava pontiffs and wardens of the Ranganatha temple. This was also theperiod when the seeds were sown for the split of the Vaisnava ranks intoTenkalai and Vadakalai. This aspect will be dealt with in the next chapter.

Kulottunga III (1178-1218)

An inscription of Kulottunga III in the Srirangam temple dated in his19th year describes his victories over Vira Pandya (the rival of VikramaPandya).1 (66 of 1892; SIL. III.88.) It is an order of the king to hisrevenue officers purporting to proceed from God Ranganatha “This is theeverlasting great order of the holy Sriranganatha, who is the cause of thecreation, protection and destruction of the three words,” but unfortunatelythe contents of the order are lost. The prasasti, however, is in tact. Itscontents, dealing with his military achievements, are, however, not relevantto our purpose. An inscription dated in the 6th year of the king (1184)registers a gift of the village Tiruvaippadinallur made tax-free for specialworship and offerings to the god. Alagiamanavala Perumal and the goddess onthe day of the Daivattarayan festival by the gopalas, who owned thetenancy rights in Valluvappadinadu (in Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.) inKarikalakanna-valanadu. The donors agreed to pay, in addition, the tax on250 veli of temple lands. It is not known who Daivattarayan was, whoinstituted this festival.2 (61 of 1936-37; also p.71.) The next recorddated in the king’s 7th year registers an endowment of 2,000 kasu by a ladyand her daughter for the merit of the former’s husband Vagalarkodali alias’…. Natha Pallavaraiyar with the monthly interest on the amount, given as 40kasu (a high rate of interest working out to 24 per cent per annum) worshipwas to be conducted to the god on the day of Rohini, every month, whichwas the natal star of the deceased.3 (76 of 1936-37) The next recorddated in the 8th year of the king registers a gift of land in Kamappullur(North Arcot District) alias Sungamtavirtta-Cola-caturvedimangalam byPrithvigangan for maintaining a flower-garden in Periyakoil (Srirangam). Asthe land endowed was situated far away evidently its income alone was to beutilised for rearing the flower garden at Srirangam.4 (258 of 1938-39.)The next record in the 19th year of the king (1197) registers the gift of12 bhujabala madai (gold coins) to the Srirangam temple for a lamp byNunkama Mahadevi, wife of Madurantaka Pottappiccolan alias Siddharaisan(i.e., the Telugu Coda Nallasiddharas, a subordinate of Kulottunga III).5 (67of 1936-37.) The last in this series is dated in his 20th regnal year andrefers to the floods in the river Kollidam and the consequent erosion into thelands of the temples of both Srirangam and Jambukesvaram. As there was

need for a resettlement of their boundaries the king issued orders throughGangayadeva of Annavayil to his local tax collecting officials, i.e., those whocollected the taxes from the temple lands (puravu vari kuru saivar andpuravu vari naykam saivar) to settle the boundary dispute between theVaisnava and Saiva temples. The officers concerned held consultations withthe representatives and superintendents of both the temples, i.e.,representatives of the sabha or the local assembly and the accountants ofthe two villages, and gave their award taking into consideration the holdingsof the two temples as they were before the erosion, in the 19th year ofthe king, and the actual enjoyment of rights of both the parties. A suitableexchange of lands in some cases was also suggested. The award wassatisfactory to both the parties, who demarcated their respective portionsby planting boundary stones with the mark of the tiruvali (Vishnu’s cakra)and the sula (Siva’s trident).6 (113 of 1938-39.)

RAJARAJA III 1216-57

Odra occupation of the temple 1223-25

Rajaraja III was less resourceful than his father and he wasdefeated by the forces of Maravarman Sundara Pandya II (1238-51). Hisfeudatories began to assume independence. The Hoysala king, Narasimha II(A.D.1220-35), championed the Cola cause against the Pandya and otherfoes and led repeated expeditions into the Tamil country. One of theseoccurred in 1221-22 and was directed against Srirangam.7 (EC VICikmagalur, 56.) An inscription of his dated in S.1145 (A.D.1223) refers tohis victorious march against the Trikalinga kings.8 (EC V.Cannarayapatnam,203.) It is certain that about this date Nirasimha did not lead an expeditionto the Kalinga kingdom. That the Odras or the forces from Kalinga or Orissawere in occupation of the Srirangam temple in 1223-25 is known from aninscription in the temple of the Pandya Maravarman Sundara I, (1216-38),who is said to have expelled them from the temple in the latter year.9 (53of 1193; SII IV.500.) Hence it is possible to infer that Narasimha IImarched in 1222 upon Srirangam against the Eastern Kalinga forces, whowere probably advancing against the same shrine about that year. But wehave no knowledge of the sequel though Narasimha’s inscription refers to hispursuit of the Trikalinga kings “penetrating their train of elephants displayingunequalled valour.” The Odras were expelled by the Pandya forces ultimatelyas is known from the inscription of Maravarman Sundara Pandya, which isalso of immediate interest to us. It runs thus.

“By order of Maravarman Sundara Pandya, “who was pleased to

present the Cola country”, - in his 9th year (1225) -, we Jiyar NarayanaDasar, Alagiyasola Brahmarayar in charge of the temple and its environs,Periya Tirupati Srivaisnavas, the various temple servants, the BhagavataNambis, the members of the Sabha of Tiruvarangam, the Vinnappamsaivar(choristers), Sripadam-tangum Nambimar (the vehicle bearers), the variousnimantakaras (temple servants) including the Aryas (with their duties) at thegateway (the Arya Bhattal), the Bhattas or the arcakas, the Srivaisnavadevotees of Emberumanar (Ramanuja) and the Srivaisnavas of the 18Mandalas that had come to witness the great festival met together in thewest of the Rajamahendran enclosure and came to the following settlement:

The ‘ten persons’ (the heads of the ten groups of temple servants),who were governing the temple from ancient times, joined with the Oddasand collected Oddukasu (a levy for the Oddas) from the temple and thenimamakaras. They also gave the Oddas paddy from the temple lands and invarious other ways destroyed the property of the temple. As a result oneday’s provision for the temple had to be utilised for many days; and oncertain days puja was not celebrated at all. Thus was the temple worshipintercepted for about 300 days in the last two years. These ‘ten persons’appropriated to themselves the temple lands in various localities and sharedthe yields (including taxes) with the Oddas. Thus the temple worship wasinterfered with and the property of the Sribhandara (the treasury of thetemple) squandered away. The temple servants were impoverished. This gaverise to loud complaints and protests. Now the regime of the Oddas is overand our Samantanar (Senapatis, i.e., the Pandya generals) have takenpossession of the temple as belonging to the rightful government. The landedproperties were all restored and all the temple services were properlyconducted. The persons responsible for the above wrongs were dismissedfrom the temple.

Now the temple servants belonging to the different groups (Tirupatikottu) are to be chosen by lot. At the close of each year they are to bereplaced (by election). This annual election is to apply also to the variouscommittees of Srivaisnavas”. The inscriber is said to be a temple accountantby name Haricaranalayappirian.

Here, for the first time, we get epigraphical confirmation, in a way,of Ramanuja’s activities in Srirangam in the mention of the ‘Srivaisnavadevotees of Emperumanar’ among persons intimately connected with thetemple. This epigraph supplements in a large measure that of Kulottunga I,noted above,10 (61 of 1892.) so far as the temple organisation is

concerned. At least five groups of temple servants or Kottus among the tenenumerated by the Koil-Olugu, in connection with Ramanuja’s reforms in thetemple, are mentioned in this inscription. The existence of the ten groups isalso clearly recognised. The five mentioned are the Bhagavata Nambis, theSripadam Tanguvar (or Stanattar), the Vinnappamsaivar, Aryabhattal, andthe Bhattalkottu. The well known facts that the medieval South Indiantemple was an owner of extensive lands, that it possessed a treasury of itsown and that it was an organised institution working with the help of groupsof servants and elected committees and protected by kings in troublous timesare also amply borne out. The mention of Rajamahendran tiruvidi is againsignificant in that it confirms the traditional association of Rajamahendrawith the Srirangam temple recorded in the Vikrama-solan-ula and the Koil-Olugu.

The troubles of the Srirangam temple due to the Odra occupationnoted above are also narrated by the Koil-Olugu, but it gives a wrong datefor the Orissan invasion. It places the invasion during the pontificate ofUyyakonda and Manakkal Nambi, i.e., roughly during the 10 century. Itgives a new piece of information, viz., that the God of Srirangam wasremoved, for purposes of safety, to Tirumalirumsolai, where He stayed forabout a year. When the image was restored it was found that some templeservants including the arcakas had turned traitors to the cause ofRanganatha, that Vaikhanasa priests had taken over worship and that menof non-Vaisnava creeds were living independently in Srirangam. The Olugu,however, is unaware of the restoration effected by Maravarman SundaraPandya but simply says that Alavandar expelled the non-Vaisnavas and wasgloriously administering the darsana. Alavandar again came much earlier.11

ESTABLISHMENT OF HOYASLA INFLUENCE

Effects on the temple:

During 1230-31 Rajaraja III made an attempt to over throw thePandya yoke, was defeated by the forces of Maravarman Sundara Pandya Iand imprisoned by his own Kadavaraya feudatory, Kopperunjinga atSendamangalam, and was restored to his position by the forces of HoysalaNarasimha II. The latter had established their camp at Paccur, two milesnorth of Srirangam, and Narasimha directed his campaigns against thePandya from there. The real object of the Hoysalas was to seize someterritory of the Colas while ostensibly going to their help against thePandyas. Consistent with this policy they changed sides and lent theirsupport to the weak Maravarman Sundara Pandya II (1238-51) against the

energetic Coli crown-prince, Rajendra, who became king in his own right(Rajendra III) in 1257. As a result Hoysala Somesvara (1235-54)succeeded in establishing a subsidiary capital at Kannanur, five miles north ofSrirangam, in the heart of the Cola kingdom. It was called Vikramapurai.

Inscriptions in the Srirangam temple in which Hoysala officers andothers figure as donors range between 1232 and 1248, but the reigning kingmentioned is invariably Rajaraja III and not Narasimha II or Somesvara.The Cola and Hoysala kings had even entered into matrimonial alliances in thisperiod probably on the understanding that Srirangam and Kannanur were tobe recognised as Cola and Hoyasala respectively. An inscription datedS.1154 or A.D.1232 registers a gift of land on the occasion of a lunareclipse for offerings to Ranganatha during the early morning service bySriramabhattan of the Bharadwaja gotra (Bhardwajakulatilakan). The door issaid to have lived in the time of king Naraharibhupala (Narasimha II), andto the shrine Tirukkulaludina Pillai (Venugopala Krisna), which was built andconsecrated by Umadevi, the queen of Ballala II (1173-1220) at the capitalDwarasamudra. The son of a great teacher at Kuruhapura (Kurugur?) he wasan ardent Vaisnava and proficient in mantric lore.12 (69 of 1936-37; Pt.II,para 47) Another inscription dated 1233 records a gift of garden byDevaladevi, the queen of Somesvara, to the temple. A sum of 4,000 kasushad been gifted for purchase of eight velis of land for the purpose.13 (54of 1892; SII IV.501; EI.VII.p.163.) The next record is dated 1238 andregisters an endowment of land to the deity of the Srirangam temple byChattayan, a senaiboga of Bogayadendanayakkar and Vallaiya-dendunayakkar,the dendunayakas (generals) of Devan Somesvaradeva, for his own well-being. The gift was made over to Siramapiran Bhattan, the Nambi ofPeriakoil.14 (158 of 1951-52) The next record is dated in the 23rd year ofRajaraja III, i.e., 1239. It registers a grant of two ma of land, purchasedfor 8,540 kasu, by Gopannan for providing flower garlands to the deity. Theland was made over to the Nambi of Periakoil.15 (156 of 1951-52) Thenext record is dated in the 6th year of Somesvara, i.e., 1240. It registersa gift of garden to the temple made by Somaladevi, one of the queens ofSomesvara. For this purpose she purchased 20 kulis of land at a cost of3,000 kasu.16 (68 of 1892; SII. IV.515) An inscription dated in the 31styear of the Cola king, i.e., 1247, registers a gift of 1,200 varaha-gajjnam(gadyana) equivalent to 840,000 kasu for worship and offerings during thesandi (worship), instituted in the name of his son Singanna Dandanayakka, inthe Srirangam temple by Sankadevannangal (Sankaradevadandanayaka), themahapradhani of Somesvaradeva.17 (102 of 1938-39.) Singhana was one ofthe important generals of Somesvara. Another inscription, dated 1248 and

much damaged, refers to Singhanadandesa as a mantri of Somesvara andregisters some provision for offerings made by him to the deity.18 (134 of1938-39.) Another record of the same year registers a gift of 15 varaha-gajjanam of gold made for the daily supply of garlands to Ranganatha for thewelfare of Kamadava, a son of Tikkanai-nacciyar, one of the queens ofSomesvara.19 (147 of 1938-39.)

The above inscriptions clearly show that friendly relations existedbetween Rajaraja III and Somesvara. The latter, it was seen above, usedhis own regnal year in an inscription (dated 1240) recording the gift of agorden by one of his queens, while the other Hoysala records in the templecarried the regnal years of the Cola. Somesvara patronised, like the otherkings of his dynasty, both Saiva and Vaisnava temples, perhaps with apredilection for the former. This could be inferred from his more concretepatronage of the Saiva temple of Jambukesvaram or Tiruvanaikka, lyingwithin a mile to the east of the Vaisnava temple of Srirangam. From hisinscriptions in this temple it is known, that he set up images of gods withsuitable shrines, in North Jambukesvaram, in the name of his grand fatherBalala II (Vallalesvara), his grand mother Padmala (Padmalesvara), hisfather Narasimha II (Vira Narasimhesvara) and his queen Somala(Somalisvara)20. (18 of 1891; 119 of 1936-37.) The Seven-storeyedgopura in the east of the temple is attributed to him by an epigraph.21(ARE 1892, para 7; 1936-37, pt.II, para 48.) He also instituted in themain temple a festival in his name, Vira-Somesvaran-Tirunal.22 (121 of1936-37.) These, however, do not justify the assumption of the lateGovernment Epigraphist, Mr.C.R.Krishnamacharlu that Somesvara was abigoted Saiva, who was hostile to Srirangam. He says: “Somesvara’s recordsare not found at Srirangam, the famous Vaisnava centre; and this justifiesthe remarks made in the opening verse of the Srirangam inscription ofJatavarman Sundara Pandya I that Somesvara had reduced to a pitiablestate the lotus-pond of Srirangam.”23 (ARE 1936-37, pt.II, para 48.) Wehave just now listed the inscriptions of Somesvara in the Srirangam temple,which do not reveal any hostility of a Saiva monarch against a Vaisnavatemple. On the other hand they show the patronage of the members of hisfamily or his officers. So far as the statement in the inscription ofJatavarman Sundara Pandya is concerned it is clearly a poetical convention.It is implied that the lotus in the lotus-pond of Srirangam “suffered” (orhad gone into a slumber) under the moon of Karnata, i.e., Somesvara (soma-moon) and blossomed again under the rise on the sun among kings, i.e.,Jatavarman Sundara Pandya I.24 (The Hoysalas generally encouraged thebuilding of Jaina, Vaisnava and Saiva monuments.) The Kaliyugaraman gopura,

building of Jaina, Vaisnava and Saiva monuments.) The Kaliyugaraman gopura,

in the east Citra street, shows the Hoysala symbol of the Gandabherunda oneach of its four jambs and the Pandya symbol of a pair of fish on the beamsof the ceiling. The gopura closely resembles that of Jambukesvaram built bySomesvara. It may reasonably be stated that the gopura was a product ofthe joint efforts of the Hoysala king, probably Somesvara, and JatavarmanVira Pandya (acc.1297), surnamed Kaliyugaraman.25 (19 of 1891.)

While referring to an inscription of Narasimha II in Srirangam theGovernment Epigraphist mentioned above said that the highly ornate shrineof Venugopala-Krisna in the fourth prakara “with sculptures and figurinesresembling Hoysala work but with no inscriptions on its walls” possibly cameinto existence “during the period of the Hoysala occupation of Srirangam andits environs”. I.e., in the reign of Rajaraja III.26 (ARE, 1936-37, pt.II,para 47. So far as “the Hoysala occupation of Srirangam and its environs” isconcerned it was suggested above that Kannanur was perhaps the limit ofHoysala occupation and it did not extend upto Srirangam.) Here again theepigraphist was not right as a study of the architecture and sculpture ofthis shrine does not show any Hoysala feature or influence, neither is thereany striking resemblance with those of the Hoysalesvara temple at Kannanur,which is known to have been built by Somesvara.27 (18 of 1891.) It is atrue representation of the orthodox South Indian style of templearchitecture and perhaps belongs to the late Vijayanagar period.

The connections of Hoysala Vira-Ramanatha, son and successor ofSomesvara, with the Srirangam temple are dealt with later.

JATAVARMAN SUNDARA PANDYA I (1251-68) AND THE SRIRANGAMTEMPLE

The weak rule of Maravarman Sundara Pandya II came to an end in1251 and was succeeded by the glorious reign of Jatavarman Sundara PandyaI. This celebrated monarch carried everything before him and performedgrand digvijaya right upto Nellore, where he performed a virabhisekasometime after 1264. By 1258 he had trumphed over the Cola and theHoysala Rajendra III, who became king in 1257, had immediately to accepta subordinate status and pay tribute. Hoysala Somesvara was defeated atKannanur and forced to withdraw to Mysore about the same year. Threeyears before this event, i.e. in 1254 Somesvara had set up his sonRamanatha, by Devaladevi, as king of the Tamil province, with Kannanur ascapital, and another son, Narasimha (III), by Bijjaladevi, as king of theancestral dominion with its capital at Dwarasamudra. From inscriptions weknow that Vira Ramanatha fought hard against the rising tide of the Pandyas

know that Vira Ramanatha fought hard against the rising tide of the Pandyas

and soon regained his hold over Kannanur. In fact he seems to have improvedupon his father’s position so far as Srirangam is concerned vis-a-vis theCola. The rise of the Pandyas was not so much a great blow to the Hoysalaas it was to the Cola. This is clear from a study of the Hoysala inscriptionsin the Srirangam temple, which has many records of Vira-Ramanathacarrying his own regnal year. This was not the case with Somesvara. Weshall first trace the relations of Jatavarman Sundara Pandya I with thetemple and then those of Ramanatha.

Of Jatavarman Sundara there are many Sanskrit and Tamilinscriptions. The most important as well as the longest of his Sanskritrecords is that of 30 verses in the Srirangam temple.28 (45 of 1891; EI.III. pp. 7 ff. A shorter inscription referring to some of his gifts is 60 of1892; SII. IV. 507.) This, in common with the other Sanskrit inscriptionsof his, bears no date. The Tamil inscriptions give astronomical data,sometimes combined with the Saka year.

Sundara Pandya seems to have first dealt with his neighbour, theCera, and ravaged his territory, the Malainadu. He then compelled the Cola,who was no more than a protégé of the Hoysala to pay him tribute. Hedefeated the Hoysalas, who suffered a terrible rout losing many of theirvaliant generals, treasure, elephants, horses, etc. The fortress of Kannanurwas stormed. When the Hoysala forces began to withdraw towards theirmountain plateau, i.e., Mysore, according to the inscription of this king atTiruppunduritti (Tanjore dt.), dated in his 7th year (1258), he desistedfrom pursuit.29 (166 of 1894; SII. V.459.) This record gives the prasastior meikkirti of the Pandya. According to it he visited, at the close of hisvictorious campaign, the famous Saiva shrine at Cidambaram and worshippedGod Nataraja. From Cidambaram he proceeded to Srirangam where he worethe garland of victory (vagai), which contained in it margosa flowers from thegroves in Uraiyur (Koli), and made rich endowments to the temple byperforming many a time the ceremony of tulabhara or ‘ascending the scales’against jewels and pearls. He roofed with gold the temple of Visnu, in whichHe reclines on the thousand-hooded Ananta and which is watered by the twinrivers. And in that temple he sat with his queen upon a luxuriously jewelledthrone, wearing a golden crown and resembling the morning sun rising on thetop of the eastern hill. Poets and scholars sang his praises. His queenUlagamulududaiyal (‘who possessed all the world’) was attended on either sideby the queens of other kings, fanning her with fly-whisks and singing herpraises.30 (Ibid.)

The Hoysala forces under Somesvara attempted to recover Kannanurbut the king was defeated and killed in a battle fought near Srirangamsometime in 1263-64.31 (Somesvara’s death is assigned to 1263, which isthe latest regnal year cited in his inscriptions, (cf. 34 of 1891). Already (in1254) he had divided his kingdom among his two sons Ramanatha andNarasimha III. The long Sanskrit record of Sundara Pandya at Srirangam(45 of 1891) opens with the statement: ‘Having caused to long for the otherworld that Moon of Karnata (Hoysala Somesvara), by whom this lotus pond ofSriranga had been reduced to a pitiable state, (and) reinstating in this(lotus-pond of Sriranga) the goddess Laksmi, who is worshipped in the threeworlds-king Sundara Pandya rose full of brilliancy like the sun’.) The doubletriumph over the Hoysalas and other triumphs over the Kadava chief ofSendamangalam, the Telugu Codas of Nellore and their allies placed in thehands of the Pandya enormous booty and treasure, e.g., his Srirangamepigraph says that he plundered the capital of the Kataka (Kadava) king,took a garland of emeralds and offered it to God Ranganatha. Hisinscriptions testify to the fact that the enormous booty, which he thusacquired, was lavishly spent upon the Saiva and Vaisnava temples atCidambaram and Srirangam.

The long Sanskrit record of the Pandya at Srirangam mentions hisbenefactions in buildings and gifts. He built a shrine on a gopura forNarasimha referred to as Visnu, ‘who gracefully raises his arms and who hasthe lacerated demon (Hiranyakasipu) on his lap,32 (The shrine of EduttakaiAlagiyasingar or Mettalagiyasingar on the northern gopura of the fourthenclosure and near the Nacciyar shrine.) and a shrine for Visvaksena(Senaimudaliar), both of which were covered with gold. He covered the mainshrine with gold, - an achievement of which he must have been speciallyproud, as he assumed, with reference to it, the surname ‘Hemaccadana Raja’(i.e., ‘the king who covered the temple with gold’). This earthly king who satin state with his queen on a jewelled throne in the temple of God wanted toset up an image of himself and install it but the temple parijanas refusedhim permission.33 (KO. p.17.) Thereupon he cast an idol of Visnu in gold “tothe tips of the nails” and placed it in the main shrine. After his own surnamehe called it ‘Hemaccadana - Raja Hari’. He covered the inner walls of theshrine with gold and built in front of it a dining hall (for the God, i.e.,abhyavahara mantapa or amudu mantapa), which he equipped with goldenvessels. In the course of two dining weeks (abhyvahara varas), which hecalled after his own name, he “filled the capacious belly of the God, whicheven the fourteen worlds could not fill”.34 (This perhaps refers to thesumptuous feeding of the devotees with the food offered to the deity.) In

sumptuous feeding of the devotees with the food offered to the deity.) In

the month of Caitra he celebrated the ‘procession festival’ (Yatrotsava) ofthe God.35 (This inscription of 30 vv. Is in ornate Sanskrit and is full ofpoetical imagination, e.g., the month of Caitra is said to be “praiseworthy onaccount of its bright, wonderful and prosperious days. It is no wonder thatthose who possess intelligence rejoice, when even the trees, which are devoidof intelligence are in his glee” (i.e., in full flower.) ) For the ‘festival of theGod’s sporting with Lakshmi’ (Viharotsava) he built a golden ship. He erectedthree golden domes, one over the image of Hemaccadana-Raja Hari, one overthat of Garuda and the third over the hall which contained the conch(Sankha) of Visnu. The following miscellaneous gifts to Ranganatha areenumerated in the inscriptions: a garland of emeralds, taken from theKadava king, which clings to the God’s breast and in so doing resembles “thetender arms of the earth (goddess) who has sportively approached frombehind to embrace Him”, a crown of jewels, whose splendour extinguishes thelight of the jewels on the hoods of Adisesa,” the serpent couch of gold“which glittered as though it had been smeared with the saffron dye of thebody of Lakshmi, who was spoting with her husband”, a golden image ofSeasa, a golden arch (Makaratorana) “made” with masses of gold taken fromthe crowns of his enemies and adorned with numerous jewels and under whichHari surpasses a monsoon cloud surrounded by a rainbow”, a pearl garland, acanopy (vitana) of pearls different kinds of golden fruits, viz., areca-nuts,jack-fruits, plantains, coconuts and mangoes, a golden car (ratha), a goldentrough, a golden image of Garuda, a golden under-garment, a golden aureola(prabhavalaya), a golden pedestal, jewels and ornaments to adorn the imageof the God from the crest to the feet, a golden armour, golden vessels, anda golden throne. The first of the gifts, enumerated above, appears to havesuggested the surname, ‘Marakatapritvibhrit, i.e. ‘the emerald king’, whichis applied to Sundara Pandya in verse 13 of the inscription. A shorterSanskrit inscription of the Pandya in the temple refers to his gilding of thevimana and his gift to the God (Bhujangaraja) of a couch or bedding (sayya),gateway (dvara), and canopy (vitana), which he had captured from hisenemies.36 (60 of 1892; SII. IV.507)

The Koil-Olugu gives a more elaborate account of the benefactions ofSundara Pandyadeva under two heads.37 (KO.pp.15-18.) The first describesthe gifts made under the supervision of the temple accountant called PallavanVilupparaiyan Kariamanikkam.38 (Pallavan Kariamanikka, the templeaccountant. Pallavan was, according to the Olugu, a title enjoyed by theaccountant of the temple, Vilupparaiyan is one who reads the accounts ofthe temple in the presence of the deity.) It is likely that the greatbenefactor appointed his own man to keep the accounts of his expenditure on

benefactor appointed his own man to keep the accounts of his expenditure on

the temple. The second refers perhaps to the series of gifts made in thedirect presence of the Pandya. All the gifts mentioned in the inscription areelaborated in the Olugu. It is said that Sundara Pandya built 24 tulapurusamantapas in the four inner enclosures and performed tulabharas therein. Theinscription says: “Repeatedly performing the ascending of the scales everyday at the shrine of the Lord of Ranga the sun among kings would havedoubtlessly broken up (Mount) Meru for the sake of gold, had it not bornethe (Pandyan) emblem of the fish” (verse 27). A prodigious tulabhara calledthe “elephant tulabhara” is also described in the Olugu. It is said that twoboats of equal weight were floated in a river ghat and in one Sundara Pandyasat upon his huge state-elephant with all his weapons and in the other werepoured gold, pearls and diamonds till the latter sank to the level of theformer. This treasure was utilised in various temple benefactions. He iscredited with the construction of the mantapa opposite the sanctum (theGayatri mantapa). The gift of a golden image of Cerakulavalli is a newfeature in the list furnished by the Olugu. It also says that he covered thewalls, pillars and cornices of the two innermost enclosures with gold plates.Another gift not mentioned in the inscription but noticed by the Olugu is agolden flag staff in the Aniyarangan courtyard. As estimated by the Olugu,the total expenditure involved in these benefactions amounted to 36 lakhs ofgold pieces (pons).

From an inscription on a slab set up in the Manavala Mahamuni mathain the south Uttara street in Srirangam it is known that it was constructedby one Varataruvan Edattakai Alagiyan39 ( (Called after) ‘the boon-bestowing Narasimha with the hand uplifted.’) alias Pallavarayan of Tunjalurin the reign of Jatavarman Sundara I. It was called Sundara Pandyan mathaand was built for the welfare of Perumal Sundara Pandya.40 (99 of 1936-37, pt.II, para 39.) This Pandya officer (Pallavarayan of Tunjalur) ismentioned in the inscriptions of Maravarman Sundara Pandya II, JatavarmanSundara Pandya I, Maravarman Kulasekhara I and Jatavarman SundaraPandya II, covering a period from 1238 to 1287.41 (The vimana and themantapa of the Nammalvar shrine at Kapila tirtham in Tirupati wereconstructed by the same Pallavarayan (Tirumalai Tirupati DevasthanamEpigraphical Report, p.77).

Two inscriptions of Jatavarman Sundara Pandya I on the walls of theCandana mantapa of the temple throw some light on its administrativeorganisation.42 (84 and 89 of 1938-39; pt.II, para 28.) Both are dated inthe 10th year or the king (1261). One records a royal order issued to hisofficer Vanadaraya to appoint the Ariyar and the Ullurar to guard the

treasury (porkaval) of the temple from Avani in his 10th regnal year. Themanagement of the temple, which was hitherto vested in one group (Kottu) ofofficials, was now extended to members of other groups also. The otherdeals with the same subject but is more informative. It purports to be anorder issued at the request of the king by the God himself while seated withHis consorts on the Bhupalarayan thorne (simhasana). It states that theadministration of the temple was hitherto conducted by a body of tenpersons belonging to the Kovanavar Kottu. The benefactions of the king arethen recounted. Besides gilding the Sriranga vimana and the Sundara Pandyanmadil (or wall) and gopura and making gifts of various articles and ornamentsof gold and precious stones he is said to have constructed theadukkalaippuram or the kitchen halls and instituted a few services. Theincrease in the wealth of the temple necessitated closer supervision andconsequently a change in the management, which was now entrusted to a bodyof ten, not exclusively of the Kovanavar as before, but two selected fromthe Kovanavar, two from Srirangamaraiyor, one from Todavattittuimaraiyor,two from Talaiyiduvar, one from Vasal-Ariyar and two from Arattamukki-anukkar.43 (For an explanation of these terms see the chapter on theAdministration of the Temple.)

THE INSCRIPTIONS OF HOYSALA VIRA RAMANATHA IN THE SRIRANGAM TEMPLE

A series of inscriptions in the Srirangam temple ranging from 1256 to1269 carry the regnal years of Hoysala Vira-Ramanatha. This shows thateither the Hoysalas regained their position in the area of Srirangam andKannanur after the brief but resplendent digvijaya of Jatavarman Sundara(1256-58) or that they were ruling as his subordinate allies. It is needlessfor us to go into the details of the political history of this period or try toreconcil the claims of the Pandya in his inscriptions with the province of theHoysala records in this area. A record of Vira-Ramanatha dated in his 2ndregnal year (1256) refers to the gift of a garden to the temple by a horsedealer (Kudiraiccetti) of Malaimandalam (Malayala territory) called NallurTuppanayakkan. The gift was made over to Tiruvaravanai Niraindar, aSripadamtangum Nambimar, along with a piece of land for his sustenance.The recipient was to supply daily two garlands to the temple.44 (67 of1892; SII. IV.514) An inscription dated in the 3rd year of Ramanatha(1257) records the foundation of a Salai (Arogyasalai) in the procession path(tirunadai-maligai) to the west of the northern gopura in the fourth prakaraof the temple. The donor, Cingadeva Singana Dandanayaka, is called apradhani of Vira Ramanatha. He made an endowment of land situated in

Mummadisola Caturvedimangalam (Lalgudi Taluk) for the upkeep of the Salai.The arogyasala (or hospital) itself was entrusted to Garudavahana Pandita,styled the raksaka or protector of the donor.45 (80 of 1936-37; EI.XXIV. p.90) This Garudavahana is said to have composed a Prabandam calledRangaghosanai, which is not extant. The Koil Olugu, most probably derivingits information from this record, says that Gangaidevar SingamDandanayakkar, the agent of Pratapacakravarti (a title of Vira-Ramanatha)constructed the Arogyasala and the procession path in the fourth enclosureof the temple.46 (KO.p.13.) The next inscription is dated in the 7th yearof Ramanatha (1261).47 (74 of 1936-37) The Tiruppundurutti record ofJatavarman Sundara Pandya, dated 1258, suggests that in that year or theyear before, the Srirangam temple had received his great gifts. Thus thegap, 1257 to 1261, in the records of Ramanatha is significant. This is ahighly damaged record. It seems to register a gift of land for a flowergarden by a member of the mint establishment community KambattattuAnikkarar). The next is dated in his 8th year (1262) and it records a giftof land for a flower garden to the temple for the merit of Ramanatha’squeen Kamaladevi and her two daughters, Periyatangi Iraiyakkan andViccanan.48 (62 of 1936-37.) Another record in the temple, also belongingto the 8th year of the king, registers a gift of gold by Sahala Bhatta, sonof Ahala Bhatta of the Sakala gotra, who belonged to the community ofParadesi Savasi (Sahavasi) merchants, for offerings during one service in thetemple and for supplying garlands to the God for the merit of the donor andhis son. The donor was Brahmana engaged in trade.49 (70 of 1936-37;Pt.II, para 50.) The next is dated in his 12th year (1266).50 (57 of 1892;SII IV.504) This inscription opens with an enumeration of all the birudas ofthe dead Somesvara. In this year there was a peaceful visit to theSrirangam temple of the royal household, which included PonnambalaMahadeviyar, the sister of Vira-Ramanatha and daughter of Somesvara byDevaladevi. She figures as the donor in this inscription. It records her giftof gardens to the temple. Out of their yields were to be supplied theprovisions for the tiruvaradana, etc. of the Karthikai festival. TirumanattunNambi was to supply the garlands. An interesting record in the templewithout date may be assigned to the 14th year of Ramanatha. This recordsthe setting up of a Sarasvaribhandara or library in a mantapa erected forthe purpose by Palappalli Nilakantha Nayakar, who also installed nearby theimages of Sarasvatidevi, Vedavyasa Bhagavan and Hayagriva, the threepresiding deities of learning. Money was also gifted for the provision ofofferings to the deities.51 (139 of 1938-39; Pt.II, para 70.) This donor isknown to have made an endowment in the 14th year of Vira-Ramanathadeva

(1268) to the neighbouring Jambukesvaram temple.52 (4 of 1937-38.) Thelibrary was probably housed in a portion of the mantapas, now occupied bythe Madappalli in the 3rd prakara, where the inscription was found. Thenext record of Ramanatha in the temple is dated in his 15th year (1269).53(52 of 1892; SII. IV.499.) This records the gift of a private person whocalls himself Kariyamari Sakalavidyacakravartin to Ranganatha of fourornaments, viz., a golden vase (kalanji), a diamond crown (karanda makuta),and two fly-whisks (camaras) with golden handles, which he had previouslyreceived from Vira Pandya.

The above inscriptions doubtless show that Vira-Ramanatha was apatron of the Srirangam temple. The Koil-Olugu enumerates the benefactionsof a certain Kampaya Dandanayaka, a pradhani of Ramanathadeva, and ofhis brother Kariyamanikka Dandanayaka.54 (KO.p.20.) An inscription refersto the former as a maternal uncle of Singhana Dandanayaka, the builder ofthe Arogyasala in the temple.55 (SII. VIII.88.) Many important structuresin the fourth and fifth enclosures like the thousand pillared mantapa, theshrines of Paravasudeva, Sudarsana Perumal and Lakshminarayana Perumal,the mantapa of the Nacciyar shrine etc., are attributed to these twobrothers.

THE SUCCESSORS OF JATAVARMAN SUNDARA PANDYA I AND THESRIRANGAM TEMPLE

Maravarman Kulasekhara I (1268-1312), who succeeded JatavarmanSundara I, defeated Cola Rajendra III and his ally Hoysala Ramanathaabout 1279 and annexed their dominions. While the Cola kingdom ceased toexist Ramanatha seized some territory in the Kannada area from his brotherand began to rule over it. Thus Srirangam, Kannanur and the adjoining areaspassed definitely under the Pandyas. Ceylon was successfully invaded in 1280by the Pandya general Aryacakravarti. The Srirangam temple contains asingle inscription of Maravarman Kulasekhara dated in his 10th year (1278).The donor figuring in this epigraph is said to be Matitungan TanininruvenraPerumal alias Ariyacakravarti of Cakravartinallur, who is probably the sameas the Pandya general mentioned above.56 (7 of 1936-37; pt.II, para 40.)It records a gift of land by purchase for rearing flower gardens and offeringgarlands of God Ranganatha.

In the last years of Maravarman Kulasekhara two princes were actingas his co-regents, a Jatavarman Sundara Pandya who began his rule in 1303and a Jatavarman Vira Pandya, who ascended the throne in 1297. Accordingto Wassaf “the elder named Sundar Pandi, was legitimate, his mother being

to Wassaf “the elder named Sundar Pandi, was legitimate, his mother being

joined to the Dewar by lawful marriage, and the younger named Tira Pandiwas illegitimate, his mother being one of the mistresses who continuallyattended the king in his banquet of pleasure.”57 (Dr.N.Venkataramanayya,The Early Muslim Expansion in South India, p.204.) The civil war betweenthese two brothers was the chief point of interest to the Muslim chroniclersas it provided, according to them, the cause of Malik Kafur’s invasion ofMa’bar. It is, however, now clear that it was only a pretext. The twobrothers seem to have ruled over different parts of the Pandya country,Vira Pandya till 1341 and Sundara Pandya till 1319 or 1320. We also have a(Maravarman) Kulasekhara (II) who began his reign in 1314. Two otherprinces Vikrama and Parakrama make the ‘Panca Pandyas’ or the “fivecrowned kings of the great province of Ma’oar”, referred to by Macro Polo.The distintegration must have produced disturbed conditions, but as has beenfrequently provided, the temples did not suffer and serious damage so longas the parties were Hindu monarchs. So far as Srirangam is concerned theprosperous state of the temple in which it was left by Jatavarman SundaraPandya I continued undiminished. Numerous inscriptions ranging from 1307 to1317 belonging to the temple give unusually elaborate details of thesettlement of learned Brahmanas in newly formed agraharas.

Nine inscriptions of Jatavarman Vira Pandya refer to the foundationof Kaliyugarama-caturvedimangalam.58 (42-50 of 1936-37; pt.II, para 42.‘Kaliyugaraman’ was title of this Pandya king. It was also borne by a certainMaravarman Vira Pandya of acc.1420. See ARE 1938-39, pt.II para 35.)The Agaram or Agrahara (Brahmana village) was formed by one Kalingaraya,an officer of the king, in the kings name, in his 10th year (1307) byobtaining lands for house-sites from various sources. Some he purchased,some he obtained by exchange and some as gifts. A large part seems tohave been purchased from the sabha of Vikramacola-caturvedimangalam.These lands were given over to Bhattas tax-free. The connection betweenthe donees and the Srirangam temple is not mentioned. Obviously they wereall learned in the Vedas, - Acaryas, who had something to do with thetemple directly or indirectly. The sites could be sold to one another amongthemselves, but if it was found necessary to sell outside they should be soldto Bhaga vatas and to persons of the same darsana.59 (42 of 1936-37.)After the lands had been gifted away some were obtained back for forminga trunk-road (nattuperuvali), which ran through the colony, and tocompensate the acquisition fresh tax-free lands were given to those thathad parted with lands.60 (46 of 1936-37.) Four records mention GomadattuNarayana Bhatta and his brother of Vikramacola-caturvedimangalam, whosold some lands and gifted some to Kalingaraya for the formation of the new

sold some lands and gifted some to Kalingaraya for the formation of the new

colony, which is referred to, once, as Kalingarayar-agaram.61 (43, 44, 47and 48 of 1936-37.) One inscription gives particulars about this Pandyaofficer, who formed the colony. He is referred to as ValaivisuvanPeriyaperumal Kalingarayar of Kattikkuricci, a hamlet of Parantakanallur inNaduvilkurram, a subdivision of Milalaikurram in Pandimandalam.62 (45 of1936-37. It may be mentioned that Kalingarayan, Kandiyadevan,Pattamanangattan and Ulagelam-venran were the birudas of Kaikkola andDevanga weavers.) Two records declare that while the God (of Srirangam)was seated on the Sundara Pandyan throne under the Sundara Pandyan pearlcanopy in the abhisheka mantapa in the temple on the Kartigai festival day,a gift of 32 house sites was made to 32 Brahmanas settled in theKaliyugarama Caturvedimangalam. These sites were purchased from thesabha of Vikramasola Caturvedimangalam and gifted by Kalingarayar. The giftwas approved by the deity, who issued an order to that effect.63 (42 and49 of 1936-37.) All these records belong to the 10th year of the king,viz., 1307. The last two are important as they refer to the throne andpearl canopy gifted to God Alagiyamanavalan by Jatavarman Sundara PandyaI and as they suggest that the new colony was meant for the habitation ofabout 32 learned Brahmanas.

The Koil-Olugu says that Kaliyugaraman built the Tirumangai Alvarmutt and other mutts in the Citra street and its prakara wall.64(KO.pp.22-23.) High up on each of the four door jambs of the big gopura inthe middle of the East Citra street is found the label ‘Kaliyugaraman’ ingrantha characters of the 13th century incised above a standing compositeimage of Gandabherunda, a human body surmounted by two birds’ headsfacing opposite directions. 65 (98 of 1936-37) As the latter was theemblem of the Hoysalas and as it is known that the great gopura of sevenstoryes at Jambukesvaram was constructed by Somesvara66 (19 of 1891;para 42, pt.II of ARE 1936-37.) and as both the gopuras are alike inworkmanship it may reasonably be stated that the are alike in workmanshipit may reasonably be stated that the Kaliyugaraman gopura was first built orits construction started by a Hoysala king, Vira Narasimha or Somesvara,and it was heightened or repaired or completed by Jatavarman Vira Pandyasurnamed Kaliyugaraman. It may also be noted that the figures of a pair offish flanking an ankusa are sculptured in relief on two of the ceiling beams ofthis gopura. The same Pandya symbols are found sculptured in relief on thetwo main ceiling beams of the seven-storeyed eastern gopura of theJambukesvaram temple attributed to Hoysala Somesvara.67 (19 of 1891,para 48 of ARE 1936-37.) It is interesting to note that these two gopuras,one in the Vaisnava temple at Srirangam and the other in the Saiva temple

one in the Vaisnava temple at Srirangam and the other in the Saiva temple

at Jambukesvaram owed their existence to Hoysala Pandya collaboration,though at different times.68 (The Government Epigraphist in the Report for1936-37 (pt.II, para 48) thinks that the Pandya collaborator in this casewas probably Maravar man Sundara Pandya I. (acc.1216) as 19 of 1891indicates that Somesvara completed the construction of the gopura, meaningthere by that he built the upper talas.)

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORYChapter 6

THE PERIOD OF THE MUSLIM INVASIONS AND THE SACK OF THESRIRANGAM TEMPLE 1311-1323

The chief points to be dealt with in this chapterwould be the sack of the Srirangam temple in 1311 on the occasion of theinvasion of Ma’bar by Malik Kafur, and in 1323 in the course of the invasionof the same territory by Ulugh Khan. The first happened during the reign ofAlauddin Khilji and the second during that of Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlak. Thefirst was a mere raid and did not seriously affect the religious life ofSrirangam. When the raiders withdrew a new image was installed and routineworship was revived. The second sack had different effects. As the objectwas empire (???) and not mere plunder Ma’bar was occupied and convertedinto a province of the Delhi Sultanate. The temple was occupied by theMuslim solidiery and used as a fort for a time, after which, it would appearthey were persuaded to abanded the temple and occupy the fortress ofKannanur. The temple was restored only in 1371 by the generals ofVijayanagar.

The rulers of the region were the Pandya princes. The Srirangamtemple contains inscriptions of Sundara Pandya (acc.1303) and MaravarmanKulasekhara (acc.1314) extending over the period 1313-19. They deal withthe foundation of Kodandarama-caturvedimangalam in Srirangam. The mutualrivalries among the Pandya princes invited the intervention of theneighbouring Ravivarman Kulasekhara, the Cera. We have the inscriptions ofthis king in the Srirangam temple ranging from 1312 to 1315. Theseregister his settlement of Brahmanas in yet another colony in his own name inSrirangam, viz., Ravivarma-caturvedimangalam. Towards the end of thechapter is given an account of the Vaisnava Acaryas, who both administeredthe darsana and controlled the temple of Srirangam. This covers the periodfrom Bhattar (the successor of Ramanuja) to Vedantadesika, roughly from1150 to 1324.

Malik Kafur’s Raid, 1311

After reducing the double walled fort of Warrangal in February 1310and after seizing its buried treasures Malik Kafur returned to Delhi.Immediately he turned back to lead his devastating expeditions against

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a y

Dwarasamudra and Madura which lay farther south. Hoysala Ballala IIIpocketed his pride and surrendered to the invader without fighting. He alsosuffered the indignity of being forced by Kafur to guide his army intoMa’bar, the country of the Pandya, through secret passages without excitingthe suspicion of its ruler or his subjects.

To the Muslim historians the Tamil country was known as, Ma’bar(meaning in arabic ‘passage’ or ‘ferry’ and to foreign travelers like MarcoPolo signified the coastline with it shinter land in South India, extending,from ‘Kulam (Quilon) to Nilawar (Nellore)’. The frontiers of Ma’bar werereached by the armies of Malik Kafur on the 15 March 1311. In Ma’barthings did not happen as he would have liked. The Pandya chieftains, underthe command of Vira Pandya took to guerilla tactics. There were no pitchedbattles, no sieges of forts and Kafur could not capture Vira Pandya andimpose on him his usual humiliating conditions. This caused no small irritationto Kafur and he spent his wrath on the ancient and glorious temples of SouthIndia by giving full reins to his iconoclastic zeal.

The route taken by Malik Kafur from Dwarasamudra is thus describedby Amir Khusru (Tarik-I-Alai): “On Wednesday, the 18th of Shawwal, theMalik beat his drums, and loaded his camels for his expedition to Ma’barfrom Dhur-Samundar. In this range there are two passes - one Sarmali(also Tarmali) and the other Tabar. After traversing the passes theyarrived at night on the banks of the river Kanobari (also Kanauri i.e.,Kaveri) and bivouacked on the sands. Thence they departed for Birdhul, andcommitted massacre and devastated all around it. The Rai Bir showed anintent of flying for security to his islands in the ocean, but as he was notable to attempt this, his attendants counselled him to fly by land. With asmall amount of treasure and property, he deserted the city and fled toKandur, and even there he dared not remain, but again fled to the jungles.”1(Elliot and Dowson. III, p.9.) Of the two passes mentioned Tabar refers tothe famous Toppur ghats between Dharmapuri and Omalur in the Salemdistrict.2 (Dr.S.Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, South India and her MuhammadanInvaders, p.103) It was at this point that Malik Kafur crossed into theTamil country from Mysore. On the 5th Zi-ul-Qa’da (26th March 1311) thearmy made a dash in a north eastern direction straight to Birdhul (also calledPattan or Fattan), which has been identified with Vira-Dhavalapattanam onthe coast in the Tindivanam Taluk of the South Arcot district, the same asMarkanam of today.3 (Dr.N.Venkataramanayya Early Muslim Expansion inSouth India, (pp.46-7); see also his article on ‘Birth-Dhul’ in JAHARS.XIII.1-5. It is to be noted that a Srirangam epigraph (79 of 1938-39)

refers to the enthronement of Sundara Pandya at Vira-Dhavalam. 319 or1929-20 refers to Vira-Dhavalam in Uraiyurkurram, a subdivision ofTenkarai Raja Gambhira-valanadu (ARE 1938-39, pt.II, para 8) Kandur isundoubtedly Kannanur (Khandanapura of the Sanskrit writers). Isamy refersto it as Kupan (Kuppam i.e., Kannanur-koppam). Malik kafur pursued thefugitive monarch to Kannanur but was sorely distressed by a constantdownpour of rain which caused great discomfort to the Muslim soldiery. “Thewater rendered the bows ineffective…..; it got in between the arrow and its(iron) point and separated them from one another; it also whisperedsomething into the ‘ears’ of the bows and untwisted their strings.”4 (Khusru:Khaza ‘in-ul-Futuh’, JIH, IX, p.90.) Despite the rains Kafur continued hismarch in search of Vira Pandya. Ultimately after a dreary and disconsolatemarch Kafur reached Kannanur and reduced the fortress after a fiercestruggle. But even here, the Pandya eluded him. He had escaped. Afterfruitless searches in impenetrable forests the army of Malik Kafur returnedto Kandur.

“Here”, continues Amir Khusru, “he (Kafur) heared that inBrahmastpuri there was a golden idol, round which many elephants werestabled. The Malik started on a night expedition against this place and in themorning seized no less than 250 elephants.”5 (Elliot and Dowson III, p.90.)Now what is Brahmastpuri? Dr.N.Venkataramanayya has shown thatBrahmastpuri of Elliot was a corruption of Barmatpuri, which in its turn wasa corruption of Marhatpuri and has said that Marhatpuri is identical withMarakatanagari mentioned in Gangadevi’s Maduravijayam, and this wasperhaps another name for Kanci.6 (Jahars III, pp.112.) According toDr.S.Krishnaswami Ayyangar Markatanagari was Virinchipuram,7(Dr.S.K.Ayyangar Sources of Vijayanagar History, p.23.) near Vellore. Atthis place, according to the Maduravijayam Kumara Kampana is said to havespent the rainy and winter seasons before advancing against the Sultan ofMadurai. The poem itself does not furnish a definite clue for itsidentification. The statement of Amir Khusru, however, that at KannanurMalik Kafur heard of the golden temple (Marhatpuri is very often referredto as the golden temple by Amir Khusru and Isamy) and reached it after anight expedition raises the doubt whether Marhatpuri was not Srirangam. Ifso the object of the night march over a distance of five miles south fromKannanur to Srirangam was obviously to take the golden temple by surprise.The golden idol referred to might very well have been that ofHemaccadanaraja - Hari, “which consisted of gold to the tips of its nails”,set up by Jatavarman Sundara Pandya I in the Srirangam temple. Only fiftyyears ago this Pandya had filled the temple with the richest gifts and

rendered it literally golden. The vimanas of the main shrine and those ofNarasimha and Visvaksena were covered with gold. In connection with theseand other benefactions he assumed the significant title “he who covered theSrirangam temple with gold (Koil-ponmeindaruliya)”. It is possible that in thedays of Malik Kafur Srirangam had become widely known as the ‘goldentemple’. On these grounds it may reasonably be suggested that Marhatpurior the golden temple of the Muslim historians was Srirangam. ThatMarhatpuri was the Muslim writers’ name for Marakatanagari is undoubtedlya specious argument. Here the following point may be considered. One of thePandya’s luxurious gifts to the God Ranganatha was a garland of emeraldstaken from the treasure of the Kadava chief of Sendamangalam, whom hevanquished in battle. In connection with this gift he assumed the titleMarakataprithvibhrit (the emerald king).8 (See above under the CaptionSundara Jatavarma Pandya I and the Srirangam Temple in Ch; V.) Is it notprobable that this gift also gave its name to Srirangam which came to becalled hence ‘Marakatanagari’ (emerald city), perhaps for a brief period?

The destruction of the golden temple is thus described in the Tarikh-I-Alai “He (Kafur) then determined on razing the beautiful temple to theground. You might say that it was the Paradise of Shaddad, which afterbeing lost, those “hellites’ had found, and that it was the Golden Lanka ofRam - in short, it was the holy place of the Hindu, which the Malik dug upfrom its foundations with great care and the heads of the Brahmans andidolaters danced from their necks and fell to the ground at their feet, andblood flowed in torrents. The stone idols called Ling Mahadeo, which had beena long time established at that place, up to this time the kick of the horseof Islam had not attempted to break. The Musalmans destroyed all theLings, and Deo Narain fell down, and the other gods who had fixed theirseats there raised their feet, and jumped so high, that at one leap theyreached the fort of Langa, and in that affright on. Much gold and manyvaluable jewels fell into the hands of the Musalmans, who returned to theroyal canopy, after executing their holy project, on the 13th Zi-l-ka’ daA.H.710 (April 1311)”. This account, no doubt, is a fanciful andexaggerated one Dr.S.Krishnaswamy Ayyangar, who first attempted anidentification of Marhatpuri with Srirangam later on rejected it on the pleathat Srirangam was purely a Vaisnava shrine while both Ling Mahadeo andDeo Narain are mentioned in the above account and was inclined to associatethe temple looted with that at Cidambaram, which contained both Saiva andVaisnava shrines. This, however, is wrong because the Govindaraja shrinehad ceased to exist at this time in Cidambaram.9 (Dr.S.K.Ayyangar, SouthIndia and her Muhammadan invaders, pp.108-9; the Govindaraja shrine,

desecrated by Kulottunga II was restored during the late Vijayanagarperiod.) Even crediting Amir Khusru with a fine sense of distinction betweenSaiva and Vaisnava shrines, still we cannot ignore the supposition that MalikKafur, who came as far as Kannanur and Srirangam could have hardly missedthe Saiva temple of Jambukesvaram within a stone’s throw of the Vaisnavatemple of Srirangam.

The Koil-Olugu’s account

The Koil-Olugu recognises clearly two Muslim advances upon Srirangamdistinct from each other. On each occasion the procession image ofRanganatha, viz., Alagiyamanavalan, was removed from the temple, and thefortunes of the temple parijanas or servants fleeting with the sacred idol, ineach case are traced in considerable detail. Two distinct restorations by twodifferent persons are mentioned. The account of the first sack of thetemple opens with the statement that ‘Dillisvaran (the king of Delhi), havingdefeated Prataparudra in battle, invaded Tondaimandalam and solamandalam’A general destruction of temples and plunder of its valuable idols followed.The Muslims entered the Srirangam temple through the northernAryabhattal gateway (i.e., the northern gateway of the third enclosure).The resistance of the Brahmanas was easily overcome, the treasury, thestore-house, etc., were plundered and images of Alagiyamanavalan,Cerakulavalli and other gods and goddesses were taken away. The loot musthave included the gold image of Visnu, a benefaction of Jatavarman SundaraPandya I.

An interesting episode, which cannot stand the test of historicalcriticism, is cleverly woven round the loss and restoration of the image ofAlagiyamanavalan. A woman of Karambanur, near Srirangam, it is said,observed the vow of taking her food only after worshipping the God ofSrirangam. When that God was snatched away by the Muslims she followedtheir armies upto Delhi and entered the Sultan’s palace in disguise. Thereshe found that a daughter of the Sultan - Sultani - had taken a fancy forthe Ranganatha idol and was keeping it with herself. The woman ofKarambanur quickly returned to Srirangam and informed the Stalattar of thewhereabouts of the image and earned for herself the name of ‘Pincenravalli,i.e., ‘she who followed (the God)’. The Stalattar of the temple buried theimage of Sriranga Nacciyar beneath the bilva tree near Her shrine, closedthe doors of the temple and under their orders sixty parijanas of thetemple followed the lead of Pincenravalli to Delhi. There they saw how“Alagiyamanavalan was capriciously playing with the Sultani in the form of an

idol during the day time and in His Vibhava manifestation in the night, in allsplendour ….. With the temple singer in the fore they attracted thepleasure of the monarch of Delhi by means of their song and dance. The kingwas much pleased and offered them enormous treasure, but the singer,refusing it, requested him to give him the image of Alagiyamanavalan. Theking ordered his servants to allow the temple parivaras to take the idol theywanted from the store house. But on searching the store house they missedthe Perumal and felt sorely vexed. On hearing from Pincenravalli, they saidto the king, “Our Perumal is in the possession of your daughter,” to whichthe king replied, “call back your god if you can”. Consequently, when thetemple singer invoked Alagiyamanavala Perumal in intense and divine melody,the god brought sleep to the girl and started. When the singer informed theSultan about this, he with wonder, allowed the parivaras to take back theirGod. Immediately they took the Perumal and, on that very night, rapidlycovered a distance of 8 miles”.10 (KO., p.26.) The Sultani, who could notbear separation from her favourite idol urged her father to send an armybehind the parijanas to recover it and bring it back to her. Accordingly anarmy of search was dispatched from Delhi, three days after an advanceparty had left, to pursue the fleeing temple servants, and the princesaccompanied this army. News reached the parijanas, as they wereapproaching Chandragiri, that they were being pursued. At once theydispersed themselves, and three of them, belonging to that class of temple-servants called the Kodavar, and who were related to each other as uncle,(his) brother-in-law and nephew, were entrusted with the sacred idol. Thesethree ascended the slopes of the Vengadam hills and concealed the idol in alonely glen hidden amidst thick jungles. The Muslim search party missed thePerumal on its way and finally it reached Srirangam. The temple wasdeserted and the gateway to the main shrine was barred by a stone slab. Itwas reported that the Perumal had not yet arrived. The Sultani, “whose lifewas sustained solely by the hope of seeing the Perumal”, died in Srirangam.The theme developed is one of intense love of the Muslim princess for theHindu God.

In the meanwhile the Stalattar of Srirangam grew tired of waiting forthe return of the Perumal. At last they made and consecrated fresh imagesof the God and Goddess and renewed worship as of old. A fresh image ofthe Nacciyar was also found necessary because the original image of theGoddess, which was buried beneath the bilva tree outside Her shrine, whenthe temple was deserted, was sorely missed when the Stalattar thought ofreinstalling it and explored the place.

The Muslim armies, on their way back to Delhi, “reached Tirupati andheard that the Perumal had gone up the hills. From the foot of the hillsthey deputed many men to make an extensive search for the Perumal. Notfinding a secret place, in that region, where they could safely keep thePerumal concealed, the Kodavar thought of a plan. Placing his brother-in-lawand nephew on the top the hill, the uncle tied himself to the Perumal withthe help of roots and herbs and asked the two on the top to let him downinto a declivity by means of a creeper fastened to a promontory of themountain, jutting out like the hood of a serpent. In course of time his bodyperished ….. The brother-in-law and the nephew got down the slope with thehelp of plants and creepers, worshipped the Perumal, cremated the body ofthe dead uncle, and remained unknown on the slopes to the north ofAlarmelmangaipuram, (Mangapuram, near Chandragiri). The brother-in-lawtoo died, in course of time The newphew, however, remained unseen, withthe Perumal, for a long time, living on roots and fruits.”11 (KO.pp.27-8. Itis likely that the cave at Tumburukona, at an elevation of 2250’, is the onereferred to by the Olugu, (T.K.T.Viraraghavacharya, History of Tirupati,Vol.1, pp.10-11 (T.T.Devasthanams, Tirupati, 1953.)

The period of the exile of the Perumal is said to be “fifty-nine-and-a-half years, of which two years were spent in the palace of the Sultan.”12(Ibid., pp.28-29) At the end of this period the nephew, now an old man of80, was found by two Irulas or hunters, whom he requested to makearrangements for the removal of the image to Srirangam. This news reachedthe chieftain of the neighbouring Candragiri and with his help the old Kodavarreached Srirangam with the image of Alagiyamanavalan. The inhabitants ofSrirangam, however, had forgotten everything about the Muslim invasion andthe exile of the original image with the result that the poor Kodavar, whohad guarded the image for 58 years, was refused admission into the templeand the image in his possession was not recognised Mysteriously enough thecrown of the image of Sriranga Nacciyar became visible, beneath the bilvatree, on the day after the arrival of the Kodavar and the Perumal. This wasentirely missed when it was searched during the restoration. The Parijanasof the temple were greatly surprised something to do with the newly arrivedimage. They took the matter to the king, who is called Rajendra Cola. ThisCola visited the temple and with a view to ascertain the truth of theKodavar’s story instituted a search for octogenarians in Srirangam and cameacross a 93 years old washerman, who was blind. He identified the imagewith the Kodavar as the original one by taking in the Iravadai tirtam (wetcloth tirtham) of both the Perumal (i.e., the original and the substitute). Heexclaimed in joy, “It is He, Our Perumal. (Nam Perumal) Alagiyamanavalan!”

exclaimed in joy, “It is He, Our Perumal. (Nam Perumal) Alagiyamanavalan!”

To him the identification was possible because he had served the originalPerumal as His washerman. Thus convinced the Cola reinstalled the originalimages of the Perumal and the Nacciyar and also erected a shrine for theSultani, who had shown great devotion to the God, in the north-westerncorner of the raised ‘procession path’ in the second (Rajamahendran)enclosure. In this shrine an image of the princess was painted on the walland consecrated. He also made arrangements for the daily offering ofwheat-bread, etc., appropriate to a Muslim princess, who became a Hindudeity, under the name of Bibi Nacciyar or Sandu Nacciyar, and endowed twovillages in Koranadu for her. The Olugu ends up this account by saying thatall these details had been inscribed on the Sandu Nacciyar shrine and thatthey were destroyed when the Citra mantapa was reconstructed.13 (Ibid.,p.32.)

From the mention of Rajendra Cola we can easily judge that noinscription of the type stated above could ever have existed. We know thatthe reign of Rajendra III, the last of the Colas, after whom there was noteven a ghost of the Cola Kingdom, came to an end in 1279, and it is a sheetimpossibility to connect a reigning Cola king with a date so far removed assay 1371 (i.e., 60 years after the flight of the Perumal). The period of anexile of 60 years, at the end of which the new generation in Srirangam didnot believe the story of exile related by the old Kodavar, furnishes the clue.The final restoration and reconsecration of the Ranganatha image accordingto Gopanarya’s inscription in the Srirangam temple took place in 1371. Theraid which is said to have occurred 60 years earlier brings us to MalikKafur'’ invasion. In a different context the Olugu deals elaborately with thesecond sack of the temple (1323) and the restoration effected by thegenerals of Vijayanagar. Obviously the chronicler has given two differentaccounts of one and the same restoration, i.e., the one effected in 1371.

Whatever might be the truth of the story of Pincenravalli and theSultani, who fell in love with the divine image, the shrine of Bibi Nacciyar orTulukka Nacciyar in the Srirangam temple is a standing testimony to thistradition.14 (Apart from the Olugu this tradition is preserved in a Telugufolk-song called the ‘Suratani-Kalyanamu’.) This is also common to a fewother Vaisnava temples of South India that had suffered at the hands ofthe Muslims. The mention of an inscription of Rajendra Cola assignable to adate, say, 1371 clearly stamps the account in the Olugu as unhistorical. Itis clearly a piece of legend, grown up in a later day, around memories of theMuslim invasions and sack of Srirangam, and is of considerable interest to astudent of folk-lore. Epigraphy furnishes no details of the Bibi Nacciyar

shrine and it is not known when it was constructed. We also do not knowwhich came first, the legend or the shrine. Like the stories of Euhemerus,the Sicilian author of the 4th century BC, the legend of Bibi Nacciyar mighthave come first and this was perhaps, in course of time, crystallised into ashrine.

The Inscriptions of Ravivarman Kulasekhara and Sundara Pandya (acc.1303)in the Srirangam temple: 1312-16.

It is well known that Malik Kafur’s Ma’bari expedition was, from thebeginning to the end, a political failure; for not only did he not succeed indefeating and taking captive the crowned king of Ma’bar, viz., the Pandya,but he actually suffered a defeat at the hands of his enemies. The hero,who rose to the occasion was Vikrama, the brother of MaravarmanKulasekhara II (acc.1268). He defeated Kafur in a battle and the latterretired for good, taking with him the booty that he had plundered in thecourse of his vandalistic march. This victory, however, did not improve theposition of the Pandyas, whose feuds continued as of old. So far at theSrirangam temple was concerned pujas and festivals were once again startedand celebrated with the help of the substitute utsava-bera of Ranganathacalled by the Koil-Olugu Tiruvaranga-maligaiyar, i.e., the God of theSrirangam temple.

The dominant figure on the stage of South Indian politics after MalikKafur’s invasion was Ravivarman Kulasekhara alias Sangramadhira. From hisKanci and Srirangam epigraphs we know that he was born in S.1188(A.D.1266), that he married a Pandya princess, became supreme overKerala when he was 33 years old (1299), defeated Vira Pandya andextended his sway over the Pandya and Cola countries, and crowned himselfking on the banks of the Vegavati, flowing near Kanci, in his 46th year(1312).15 (EI. IV pp.145, 148.) In that same year and later (1312-16)we find him active in Srirangam making rich gifts to Ranganatha, his tutelarydeity, and we also find inscriptions of Sundara Pandya (acc.1303) of thesame period (1312-15) in the Srirangam temple, which show that therelationship between these two in this period was one of friendship. Aninscription in the Srirangam temple of the 9th year of Perumal SundaraPandya (1312) registers that on the representation made by several personsRavivarman Kulasekhara, called here Venattadigal, (the king of Venad) madea gift of sites, after purchase, to the temple of Ravinarayana Perumal andto several bhattas colonising the village Ravivarma-Caturvedimangalam newlyfounded by him. Since Ravivarman figures in this inscription only as donor and

not as king it has to be supposed that his visit to Srirangam on thisoccasion, was perhaps on the eve of his coronation at Kanci the sameyear.16 (40 of 1936-37.) We have three Tamil records of RavivarmanKulasekhara in the Srirangam temple. In these he assumes the familiar Colaand Pandya titles Tribhuvanacakravartin and Konerimaikondan. As king he isseen making further gifts to his colony in Srirangam and endowments to thetemple of Ravinarayana Perumal consecrated therein by him. Of the threerecords one is dated in his 3rd year (1315.) 17 (39 of 1936-37.) Itrecords a tax-free gift of 25 velis of land in the village of Todaiyur,Nattunangudi and Malavanur on the northern bank of the Kaveri (VadakaraiRajarajavalanadu) for the Caturvedimangalam and the temple. Another isdated in his 4th year (1316.)18 (37 of 1936-37.) It registers a remissionof taxes on 5 velis of lands granted to the bhattas of Ravivarma-Caturvedimangalam. In this epigraph it is stated that the agrahara and thetemple therein were founded in the 3rd year of the king (1315). This meansthat he had purchased the sites and bestowed them upon the bhattas andmade other arrangements for the formation of a colony in his name in 1312under the authority of Sundara Pandya and that the agrahara and thetemple received official recognition only in 1315 when he was king. The otherinscription, also dated in his 4th year, says that the order (terippu)communicating the royal sanction to the gift mentioned in the above epigraphwas issued while the king was camping at Kannanur.19 (38 of 1936-37.) TheSanskrit inscription of Ravivarman Kulasekhara in the Srirangam temple maybe assigned to 1315-16, during which year he seems to have stayed inSrirangam, where he is said to have made “an abode of the God” and to havegiven “a delightful residence” to the God.20 (46 of 1891; EI. IV.; p.148)Obviously this refers to the foundation of the Ravivarma Caturvedimangalamand the consecration of Ravinarayana Perumal therein. He is also said tohave performed a dipotsava for Ranganatha and to have provided for thedistribution of 100 panas each to 50 learned men every year on theasterism Satabisaj.

The following are the inscriptions in the Srirangam temple of SundaraPandya (acc.1303) and Maravarman Kulasekhara II (acc.1314) dealing withthe foundation in Srirangam of yet another agrahara. In his 10th year(1313) we find Sundara Pandya actively engaged in the foundation of anagrahara and shrine in his own name. The inscription dated in his 10th yearregisters tax free gifts of 670 ma of land to several bhattas and otherscolonising the agrahara called Kodandarama-Caturvedimangalam newly foundedin the name of the king in Tiruvarangam Tirupati, a subdivision ofPadikulapativalanadu, on the southern bank (of the Kaveri)s and a further

Padikulapativalanadu, on the southern bank (of the Kaveri)s and a further

gift of 30 ma of land for offerings and worship to God LaksminarayanaPerumal consecrated in that colony.21 (18 of 1936-37, pt.II, para 43; seealso ARE 1918, Pt.II, para 50. 1 ma = 100 kulis = 1/20th of a veli (oneveli approximating to 6.74 acres). ‘Kodandarama’ was a well known title ofthis Pandya king.) An inscription dated in his 11th year (1314) records agift of land to the sabha of Jagadekavira Caturvedimangalam in exchange for3 velis of land required for the temple of Kodandarama-caturvedimangalam.22 (29 of 1936-37.) Next year, i.e., according to theinscription of the king dated in his 12th year (1315) and engraved incontinuation of the inscription of his 10th year mentioned above; the kingmade another tax-free gift of 106 ma of land in the same agaram to thebhattas and to God Kodandarama Perumal (perhaps the same asLaksminarayana Perumal, now called after the king’s surname.23 (19 of1936-37.) Two more records of the king dated in the same year, registerfurther gifts of land to the bhattas of the colony and the God, Kodandaramaperumal.24 (20 and 21 of 1936-37.) When the bhattas of the new colonypurchased some lands on their own account they were also made tax free.25(22 of 1936-37.)

The inscriptions in the Srirangam temple of Maravarman KulasekharaII (acc.1314), one of which is dated in his 3rd year (1317), refer tofurther acquisition of lands by the bhattas of Kodandarama-Caturvedimangalam by purchase. It is interesting to note that two shrines ofthe Srirangam temple sold their own lands to the bhattas of the new colony.Two records register the sale of garden lands to these bhattas by theofficials of the Eduttakai Alagiya-Nainar shrine and the Sriranga Nacciyarshrine.26 (23 and 26 of 1936-37.) Among individuals who sold garden landsto the colonists were Srivaikuntadasar of Tirumeyam, Piraguvali Nittan aliasKoilponmeinda Perumal-dasa; Arulalapperumal alias PiraguvaliAlagiyaperumaal-dasa and Karumanikkal van alias Anukkavillidase, the lastthree dasas being the dasanambis of Tiruvarangam Tirupati.27 (24, 25, 27and 28 of 1936-37.) A set of two inscriptions in this series are dated inthe 5th year of Kulasekhara (1319) and furnish important details of thelocation of the colony, the number of the colonists and the name of Pandyaofficer, who founded the colony.28 (115 and 116 of 1938-39; pt.II, para33.) They purport to be an order issued by God Ranganatha assigning thefood offered to the God during the two services Ponmeyndan-sandi andKodandaraman-sandi to the 48 bhattas of Kodandaramacaturvedi-mangalamround the Vellaimurram mantapa near the Ellaikkarai, founded byKarumanikkalvan of Pandimandalam. The second record, amplifying the first,states that the agrahara was formed for the welfare of Perumal Sundara

states that the agrahara was formed for the welfare of Perumal Sundara

Pandya and also makes reference to the two services, one as a recentinstitution (Kodandaraman-sandi) and the other as an earlier one. It alsogives details regarding the concessions granted to the bhattas in thedistribution of the offerings referred to above.

The foundation of agraharas by kings in Srirangam by making gifts oflands and house-sites to bhattas or learned Brahmanas, who probably hadtheir services in the great Vaisrava temple, immediately before and afterMalik Kafur’s raid shows, as suggested earlier, that the prosperity of thetemple, testified to by the inscription of Jatavarman Sundara Pandya I,continued unabated in spite of the political vicissitudes that followed hisglorious reign. The temple was expanding in size and activity and wasattracting more and more devotees, in general, and Srivaisnavas, inparticular, who sought service in general, and Srivaisnavas, in particular, whosought service in the temple. The foundation of new Brahmana colonies in thetemple town at the initiative of pious kings was clearly a symbol of thisgrowth.

During the interval between Malik Kafur’s raid (1311) and theexpedition of Ulugh Khan (1323) the political conditions of Ma’bar remainedunchanged. The civil war between Sundara Pandya and Vira Pandya continued.An army of Hoysala Ballala III came to the help of Vira Pandya and wasdefeated (1318). Sundara Pandya himself had been defeated by RavivarmanKulasekhara in a battle (c.1316) and the Kerala ruler was triumphantly rulingfrom Kanci but his own success was short-lived. An inscription in theSrirangam temple of Kakatiya Prataparudra, dated S.1239 (A.D.1317)states that his commander Devari Nayaka, son of Macya Nayaka, marchedwith an army to the south against the Panca Pandyas, defeated Vira Pandyaand the Malayala-Tiruvadi Kulasekhara at Tiruvadikundram and establishedSundara Pandya at Vira Dhavalam in Uraiyur-Kurtam. The last two lines ofthis record are highly damaged and suggest some sarvamanya (rent-free)gift (of land), evidently to God Ranganatha, details of which are lost.29 (79of 1938-39; pt.II para 8. Devari Nayudu or Nayaningaru was a general ofMuppidi Nayaka.)

The Koil-Olugu makes mention of a few structures of the shrine ofEduttakai Alagiya Nainar in the Srirangam temple as the benefactions of aCera, king of the Malayala country, most probably RavivarmanKulasekhara.30 (KO p.21.)

Ulugh Khan’s expedition (1323) and the second sack of the Srirangamtemple.

temple.

Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlak (1320-25) realised the futility of seeking tomaintain the allegiance of distant provinces by occasional military raids, anddecided not only to conquer the entire peninsula of South India but to imposeover every part of it effective military and administrative control. He madeUlugh Khan, his eldest son and heir to the throne, the commander of anexpeditionary force, which first put down a rebellion in Maharastra and thenmarched upon Warangal. The attack on Warangal failed (1321). Next yearanother expedition was organised and Prataparudra, who did not expect it,was surprised and defeated. Warangal fell. In 1323 Ulugh Khan marchedagainst Ma’bar. The Maduraittalavaralaru and the Madurai-stanikar-varalarumention Ani of Rudhirodgari as the month and year of the Muslim invasion(June 1323), though they furnish wrong saka dates, viz., S.1246, Aksayaas the year of the Muslim invasion. Aksaya corresponds to Saka 1248 andnot 1249. The Sriranga Narayana Jiyar Guruparamparai gives the correctdate for this invasion, viz., S.1245 (A.D.1323).

An important event in the history of Vaisnavism as maintained by theVaisnava tradition is the Muslim sack of Srirangam and the consequentperigrinations of the Ranganatha image. All the Vaisnava hagiologies refer tothe Muslim occupation of the Srirangam temple, the Guruparamparai(Vadakalai and Tenkalai versions), the Prapannamritam, the Telugu hagiology,viz., Acaryasukti Muktavali and the Koil-Olugu give interesting details of theinvasion, which is referred to in connection with the lives of Pillai Lokacaryaand Vedantadesika. From the dates given by these hagiologies to theseAcaryas it could be ascertained that the invasion referred to by them wasthat undertaken in 1323.

The Koil-Olugu gives the following account of Srirangaraja NathanVaduladesika, who was in charge of the Srikaryam of the Srirangam templeat the time of the Muslim invasion. “Subsequent to the collapse of the Colakingdom Pancatiruvadi Muttukrishnaraja became king, and under his patronageIyan Ramanujacaryar, a Vaduladesika, gloriously conducted the affairs of thetemple. His son was Tirukkopurattu Nainar, who was in-charge of theSrikaryam for a long time during the reign of Narasimharaja. The second sonof Tirukkopurattu Nainar, by name Siddhannar, succeeded to the seat ofVaduladesika and conducted various festivities for the God under thepatronage of Pancatiruvadi Kesavaraja. The son and successor of Siddhannarwas Srirangarajanathan Vaduladesika, of much wisdom and devotion, whocontributed largely to the expansion of ‘Srirangasri, under the patronage ofPancatiruvadi Virapparaja. For a long time he was childless and ultimately,due to devine favour, a son was born to him. This was in Saka 1249,

Aksaya, when it was said that the Muslims had occupied Tondaimandalam.”31(KO.125-27) It is possible that a descendant of Mudaliyandan, with thetitle of Vaduladesika, was in charge of the Srikaryam of the temple in thedays of the Muslim invasion, but the names of his and his forefathers’patrons, which clearly recall the names of the Nayak kings or theirfeudatories, have to be given up as groundless.32 (It is clear that this partof the Olugu was written or rewritten or added during or after the period ofthe Nayaks.)

The narrative that follows is found in all the hagiologies mentionedabove. When the news of the coming of the Muslims reached Srirangam afestival was being conducted in the course of which the procession image ofRanganatha (Alagiyamanavalam) was taken to the shrine of Varahamurti(Panriyalvan) on the banks of the Coleroon, a little away from the maintemple of Srirangam. A lot was cast to ascertain whether the God willed tostay where He was or betake himself to a place of safety. The Godpreferred to remain where He was. Hence the festival was continued.Before long news was brought that the Muslims were advancing past Kannanuror Samayapuram. Srirangarajanathan Vaduladesika realised that no time wasto be lost and, commanding the 12,000 ascetics, who had assembled inTiruvolakkam (Congregation of hymnists), no to disperse he sent awaysecretly the procession image of Ranganatha in a tiny palanquin in a southerndirection under the guidance of Pillai Lokacarya and a few parijanas. Herushed to Srirangam and despatched similarly the image of Sriranga Nacciyarand few boxes of treasure and jewels under a few attendants probably inthe rear of the first party of flight. He locked the doors of the sanctum,barred the doorways of the shrines of both the god and the goddess withstones and placed pseudo-images in the mantapas opposite and thenproceeded to the shrine of Panviyavlan.33 (Two mula beras are found in theNacciyar shrine. It is possible that one is the image that was walled upduring the raid.) By this time the invaders had reached the spot anddesecrated that shrine. The Koil-Olugu says that the 12,000 ascetics werekilled, and refers to this incident as the Panriyalvan-tirumottu mahakalatham(The invasion of Panriyalvan Tirumedu) and Pannirayiramtirumudi-tiruttina-kalabham (the invasion which took 12,000 heads). Vedantadesika, who was inSrirangam at this time, managed to escape with the two little sons ofSudarsana Bhatta, the author of the Srutaprakasika, and a singlemanuscript of his famous commentary on Ramanuja’s Sribhasya and betakehimself through forests to the distant Satyamangalam on the border ofMysore.34 (The Koil-Olugu which deals with an accredited Tenkalai Vaisnavatemple, omits all mention of Vedantadesika, who has come to be the head of

temple, omits all mention of Vedantadesika, who has come to be the head of

the Vadakalai sect. The Prapannamritam, e.g., says that Lokacarya andothers took the sacred idols and escaped by way of Gostipura, under thedirection of Vedantadesika, who walled up the garbagriha and himselfprepared to escape. There is also a tradition that in the moment of peril hesaved himself by hiding beneath a mass of dead bodies.) The Muslim chiefproceeded to the Srirangam temple and occupied it.

The wanderings of the Ranganatha image are sketched in great detailin the Koil-Olugu and other works. The travels of the image from Srirangamand back involved a big journey in a circle comprising the whole of SouthIndia and this was perhaps undertaken with the avowed intention of avoidingthe interior districts, which were being over-run by the invaders. The routeadopted by the fugitives is easily told. Leaving Srirangam they proceededdue South and passing through the former Pudukottah state reachedGostipura or Tirukkottiyur, 7 miles south of Tiruppattur in the Ramnaddistrict. From Gostipura they came further south to Jyotiskudi, which hasbeen identified with Jyotismatipura or Kalaiyarkoil in the same district.35(Dr.S.Krishnaswami Ayyangar, South India and her Muhammadan invaders,pp.163-64.) On the way the jewels of the God and the valuable belongingsof Lokacarya were all taken away by robbers. In the course of a month’sstay here Pillai Lokacarya is said to have died distressed by the news of thewoes suffered by his own kith and kin at Srirangam. Leaving Jyotiskudi theyturned west and reached the famous Vaisnava shrine of Tirumalirumsolai(Alagarkoil), 12 miles north of Madurai, where the idol was kept for a year.From Alagarkoil they were obliged to flee in a north-western direction untilthey reached Kolikodu (Calicut), where they found many refugees likethemselves, carrying the fugitive gods from the various sacred shrines inSouth India. Prominent mention is made of the image of Nammalvar fromTirunagari which was taken under the protection of the party carryingAlagiyamanavalan. The party stayed in Calicut for a year. From there theyjourneyed on in a north eastern direction and reached Tirukkinambi, animportant Vaisnava shrine in the Gundlupet Taluk in the extreme south ofMysore state. A Tirukkinambi the image of Nammalvar was installed in thelocal temple and, after a stay of many days, the fugitive of Srirangamproceeded in the same direction covering vast distances through jungles toavoid capture. Ultimately they reached Punganur in the Chittoor district andbordering on the Mysore State. At Punganur they sensed danger and wereobliged to fly back into the Mysore country. They stayed in the temple ofTirunarayanapuram or Melukote (Seringapatam tq.), to the north ofTirukkinambi, for a long time, and then made themselves bold to rush acrossMysore and the Cittoor district to Tirupati. In the shrine of Sri

Mysore and the Cittoor district to Tirupati. In the shrine of Sri

Venkateswara on the Tirupati hills the Ranganatha image was safelydeposited for a long time until it was taken back to Srirangam and reinstalledthere by the chiefs of Vijayanagar in 1371.

It is not possible to verify the actual details of the perigrinations ofthe Ranganatha idol sketched above. The route adopted by the fugitivesclearly shows that the object of the latter was to keep as far away fromthe Muslims as possible. Ultimately the image found shelter in Tirupati,which shrine seems to have escaped the depradations of the advancinginvaders on both the occasions. Malik Kafur marched from Dwarasamudra toPattan (Viradhavalam) and thence to Kandur thus leaving Tirupati in thenorth. The details of Ulugh Khan’s march on Ma’bar from Warangalare notfurnished by the Muslim historians and most probably he came to Pattan duesouth from Warangal and then proceeded to Madurai thus leaving Tirupati inthe west. The Koil-Olugu, however, says (while adverting to the story ofthe Sultani) that the Muslims heard at Srirangam that the Perumal was atTirupati and that they came to Tirupati and sent uphills several searchparties but could not find the Perumal. This account has to be treated on apar with the story of the Sultani.

It would appear that Srirangam suffered twice (obviously in 1311 and1323) as a result of the Muslim invasion and that the final restoration ofworship in the temple was effected only in 1371. After the first raidworship was restored with the help of a substitute image the ‘TiruvarangaMaligaiyar’ of the Olugu. Even this had to leave the temple in 1323 and fromthis date to 1371 there was no worship, as usual, in the temple. During thisperiod the Utsava bera (the procession image) was housed in Tirupati.According to the Tirupati tradition the Ranganatha image was housed in theRangamandapam in the Tirumalai temple and as the God was staying as aguest Tiruvaradana (i.e., puja and good-offering) was done first to Him andcertain prabandas considered dear to Him was recited in the presence ofVenkateswara of Tirumalai-Tirupati. Strictly speaking and on the basis ofhistorical evidence available, however, it is to be presumed that the imagefirst lost was lost for ever. The account of the first restoration (includingthe stories of Pincenravalli and the Kodavar) is as much unhistorical as thestory of the Sultani. As stated earlier they belong to the realm of folk-loreand mythology.36 (One of the bronzes kept in the sanctum of the Srirangamtemple and resembling the main procession image is called Tiruvaranga-Maligaiyar and worship is offered to it as yajna murti along with othersmaller images for snanam, sayanam, bali and tirtam. This however does notprove the story in the Olugu. It is possible that the original image was after

prove the story in the Olugu. It is possible that the original image was after

all secreted and saved some how on the first occasion and that this gaverise in due course to the stories of Pincentravalli the Kodavar.

The Temple under Muslim occupation

Direct control was exercised over Ma’bar from Delhi between theyears 1324 and 1334. In the latter year the governor with headquarters atMadurai, declared himself independent and thus founded the Kingdom ofMa’bar. This kingdom or the Sultanate of Madurai was extinguished by therising tide of Vijayanagar in 1378. Parts of the kingdom had already beenoverrun, eg., Srirangam had been taken in 1371 and the temple restored.

Some information about the Srirangam temple during the Muslimoccupation is furnished by the Koil-Olugu. The Muslim chief, it appears,made the Alagiyamanavalan tirumantapa, opposite to the sanctum sanctorum,his residence and from there ruled the villages surrounding Srirangam. Oneof the temple courtesans, who fascinated the Muslim general dissuaded himfrom destroying the temple completely and made him content himself withthe mutilation of the cornices of the various gopuras and mantapas of thetemple and a few images like the Dvarapalakas surrounding the centralshrine. The general, who was frequently attacked by disease as long as heremained in the temple, quitted it in despair and lived in Kannanur, where hepulled-down the walls of Poysalesvara temple and erected a fortress forhimself. The temple itself was converted into a mosque.37 (162 of 1936-37, which states that the temple of Posalesvra Udaiyanar, which had beenconverted into a mosque by the Tulukkar, was reconsecrated by KampanaUdaiyar in the course of his victorious campaign.) A brahmana by nameSingappiran, a kaniyala of the temple (i.e., an officer exercising control overthe temple lands), who was interested in the safety of the temple and thetown, won the acquaintance of the chief through the temple courtesan, andacting as his servant at the gate, safeguarded the precincts of the templeas far as he could. With the disappearance of the procession images, theoriginal as well as the substitute, regular of Srirangam, it would appear, didtheir best to attend on the sanctum image of Ranganatha (Periya Perumal)by giving Him the holy bath and offering Him oblations, secretly orotherwise, but were constantly harassed by the Muslims, who swarmed thetemple. The temple courtesan could not bear this. She attracted the Muslimchief by means of her charms, took him up a gopura in the east, and, in theact of showing to him the image of Paravasudeva (on the main vimana),pushed him down. This killed him. Haunted by the fear of the consequencesof the sin of muder she too threw herself down, but did not die. “Later on,

when the other Muslim armies had fled, the parijanas opened the doors ofthe temple and found life still lingering in the body of the dasi. Immediatelythey all went to the Perumal and appealed to Him. Through theinstrumentality of an archaka the Perumal came to her and, with greatsatisfaction, asked her what boon she wanted. She replied, ‘whenever any ofmy creed dies the fire for cremation should be fetched from the templekitchen, and to them must be offered a certain quantity of rice from thestore house, and also tirtham, garland and parivattam’. Accordingly fromthat day her requests are being fulfilled.”38 (KO pp.128-9, 134-5. Thisaccount is also given in the Acaryasuktimuktavali, the Vaisnava hagiology inTelugu by Namburi Kesavacaryai. This work says that the Muslim chief waspushed down from the Vellagopuram. Dr.S.K.Ayyangar, Sources ofVijayanagar History, p.p.40-45.) This account too, is best treated asanother Euhemerian legend, like that of the Sultani or Bibi Nacciyar, grownup around memories of the Muslim occupation and chronicled in an obviousattempt to cover up an otherwise humiliating picture.

The Prapannamrtam39 (a Vaisnava hagiology of the Vadakulai variety,in Sanskrit written by Anantarya, a contemporary of Venkatapati Raya(1585-1614). This gives an elaborate account of the sack of the temple andwanderings of the Ranganathan idol. Dr.S.K.Ayyangar, Ibid., pp.34-40.)says that a Dravida brahmana by name Narasimhadeva (‘Singappiran’ of theOlugu) persuaded the Muslim conqueror to remove his headquarters fromSrirangam to Samayapuram (Kannanur) and had himself appointed as managerof the Vaisnava shrine. As a result of his vigilance and caution the shrineand its inhabitants were given some respite and it was possible for some ofthe fugitives to return once more to their native homes.

The Vijayanagar chronicles corroborate, in a large measure, theaccounts of the hagiologies and they are more informative as regards therestoration and re-consecration of the divine images, which would beconsidered in the next chapter. The Madhuravijayam (by Gangadevi, wife ofKampana, the son of Bukka I, describing his exploits in Ma’bar) gives thefollowing sketch of the state of temples and their environs in South Indiaduring the Muslim rule: “The temples in the land have fallen into neglect asworship in them has been stopped. Within their walls the frightful howls ofjackals have taken the place of the reverberations of the mridanga. Likethe Turuskas, who know no limits, the Kaveri has forgotten her ancientboundaries and brings frequent destruction with her floods. The sweet odourof the sacrificial smoke and the chant of the Vedas have deserted theagraharas, which are now filled with the foul smell of roasted flesh and the

agraharas, which are now filled with the foul smell of roasted flesh and the

fierce noises of the ruffinaly Turuskas”. To put an end to this sort ofaffairs Kampana undertook his southern expedition. Of Srirangam andJambukesvaram this work says: “The vimana of Srirangam is so dilapidatedthat now it is the hood of Adisesa along that is protecting the image ofRanganatha from the falling debris. The Lord of Gajaranya(Jambukesvaram), who once killed an elephant to obtain its skin for hisgarment, has now again been reduced to the same condition, because he hasbeen stripped of all clothing.”

Ramanuja to Vedantadesika

As the Srirangam temple happened to be the loadstar of the Vaisnavamovement in South India, particularly during the period of Ramanuja andimmediately after, it is necessary, here, to trace briefly the Vaisnavaapostolic succession in Srirangam from the point where it was left earlier,i.e. Ramanuja’s work in connection with the Srirangam temple. In the post-Ramanuja period Srirangam gradually lost its preeminent position owing to thesplit that grew step by step in the Vaisnava movement leading to themergence, in due course, of the Tenkalai and Vadakalai sects of Vaisnavism.Srirangam, as a result, became the headquarters of the former andKanchipuram that of the latter. Thus the period from Ramanuja toVedantadesika, roughly covered by two centuries (1150-1350) was a criticalperiod in the history of South Indian Vaisnavism, when the seeds of discordwere sown resulting in the split, which became quite patent in the 15th and16th centuries. For the same reason a study of this period is beset withserious difficulties. For the first time, e.g. A uniform development isfollowed by disunity and partisanship and the consequent uncertainty ofsuccession and dates. It is not possible for a modern historian either touphold entirely or criticise downright either of the Vadakalai or Tenkalaiversions of the Vaisnava apostolic succession. In the absence of anymaterial, epigraphical or otherwise, in the shape of confirmatory evidence,the historian has to depend entirely on the two sets of Guru paramparais.To question even a minor detail of either or to point out inconsistencies andimprobabilities in them may be to invite violent criticism based on sectarianrancour and rouse fruitless controversy. It is not proposed, here, to enterinto such a controversy, and the only object is to sketch briefly the well-marked tendencies and stages of development of Vaisnavism in Srirangam,which are also relevant to the history of the temple. So far as theadministrative organisation of the temple was concerned Ramanuja’s system(Udayavar tirtam) was sought to be continued and was not interfered with.The progress was more spiritual and literary than secular.

The progress was more spiritual and literary than secular.

The period under consideration was one of “growing party-spirit andnot of actual party split”. That was the dominant characteristic of thisessentially transitional period. It arose, briefly, in the following manner.Even in the last days of Ramanuja two distinct modes of expounding theVaisnava darsana or system were recognised. They were called thepravacanas, viz., the Sribhasya pravacana and the Dravidamnaya pravacana.The former consisted of the study of the Vedanta sutras with the help ofRamanuja’s commentary on them in Sanskrit and the latter the study of the4,000 sacred prabandas, in Tamil, of the Alvars. Ramanuja followed boththe methods in his expositions, but later on this gave rise to two separateschools, two centres and two paramparas or succession lists.

According to the Tenkalai version Parasara Bhattar, the son ofKurattalvan, (i.e., the Alvan of Kuram, whose name was also ParasaraBhattar) succeeded Ramanuja on the pontifical seat at Srirangam. He is saidto have defeated, in a great religious disputation, a famous philosopher ofhis time from Mysore called Vedanti. A certain Virasundarabrahma Rayar issaid to have reconstructed the wall of the Trivikraman enclosure (i.e., the6th wall surrounding the Ranganatha shrine). This benefactor was arrogantand he made the life of Bhattar in Srirangam intolerable. As a resultBhattar left Srirangam for Tirukkottiyur and returned only after the deathof the Rayar. Probably this benefactor was a local chief in charge of theregion round Srirangam, in the days of the last Cola kings, analogous withthe ‘Koil-kuru-udaiyan Alagiyasolabrahma Rayan,’ figuring in the Srirangamepigraph of Maravarman Sundara Pandya I.40 (53 of 1892; SII, IV 500.The reference means ‘Alagiyasolabrahma Rayan, in charge of the (Srirangam)temple and its environs.) Bhattar has left to his credit eight works, viz.,Sahasranamabhasya, Astasloki, Gunaratnakosa, etc. All of these are inSanskrit. Vedanti, who was vanquished by Bhattar in debate, became thefervent disciple of his victor, under the name of Nanjiyar, and after thedemise of the teacher the pupil succeeded to the gadi at Srirangam.41 (Oneof the disciples of Bhattar was one Pillai Perumal Iyengar, also known asAlagiyamanavaladasa. He was a great devotee of Sriranganatha and the‘swing song’ in Tamil called Sriranganayakar usal is attributed to him.According to a popular tradition Pillaipperumal Aiyangar was so much devotedto Ranganatha that he refused to compose verses on Venkatesa of Tirupati.The statement aranganaipadum vayal kuranganaippaden is attributed to him.As a result he is said to have suffered from canker of the neck. He gotrelief when he retracted. God Ranganatha is said to have informed him thatHe and Venkatesa were not different. The portrait of Srinivasa Perumal(Venkatesa) in the first prakara of the temple is said to commemmorate

(Venkatesa) in the first prakara of the temple is said to commemmorate

this, One difficulty in verifying this account is the existence of more thanone Pillaipperumal Aiyangar, alias Alagiya manavala-dasa, widely differing indate.) His chief work was a commentary on the Tiruvaimoli called, from thenumber of verses in contained, ‘the 9,000’. He had a precocious pupil byname Nambur Varadaraja, whom he engaged to write a clean copy of hiswork. When Varadaraja was crossing the Kaveri with the manuscript to hisown village, a swift current came on and swept off the bundle of candianleaves from the hands of Varadaraja. The pupil reached home sad butundismayed. Out of memory he wrote out a complete transcript of thecommentary, and when Bhattar saw it, he saw his own commentary not onlycomplete but much improved in many a context. In amazement he calledVaradaraja Nampillai (My son or our Son). Nampillai succeeded to the seatof Nanjiyar, it would appear, in the last days of his teacher. Nampillai wasan ardent lover of the Tamil Prabandas and he was great force in theformation of the Prabanda school at Srirangam. Engal Alvan and Varadacaryaof the Bhasya school were his contemporaries. On the withdrawal of thelatter to Kanchipuram from Srirangam Nampillai acted vigorously andgathered around himself a band of veteran scholars, whose avowed objectwas to win for the nascent Prabanda school stability and popular recognitionbased on sectarian literature. The Arayirappadi Guruparamparai sketches aconflict between Kandadai Tolappa, the grandson of Mudaliyandan, and hencebelonging to the orthodox and traditional school, and Nampillai. In the end,however, they were reconciled. On this incident V.Rangachari comments, “thestory is significant enough. It tells us in a clear and unmistakable mannerhow the Prabandic movement was looked upon as heterodox, how it began in asmall scale and how it gained strength in the time of Nampillai by bringinground even such orthodox men as the Acharyic Kandadais.”42 (V.Rangachari:The successors of Ramanuja, JBb RAS VXXI, pp. 120 ff.)

Under the inspiring leadership of Nampillai his chief two disciples, viz.,Periya Accan Pillai and Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar, did two signal services tothe cause of the Prabanda school. Periya Accan Pillai is famous as theveteran commentator, of the ‘Four thousand sacred prabandas’ or theNalayiradivya-prabandam, and his compilation called ‘the 24,000’ was basedon the Prabanda lectures of his teacher. Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar’scontribution to the cause of the Tenkalai school was even more substantial.He wrote out a Guruparamparai or a succession list of Acaryas, whichclaimed for Nampillai’s teachings all the sanctity and veneration of a creedprofessed by a line of Acaryas and thus gave a traditional or Apostolicbasis, without which no doctrine could command any hearing in the medievaldays, to what was in fact a protestant wing of Vaisnavism. He wrote in the

days, to what was in fact a protestant wing of Vaisnavism. He wrote in the

peculiar manipravala style (a mixture of Tamil and Sanskrit), gave prominenceto the Prabanda teaching and teachers and omitted all mention of theorthodox and Sanskrit school and their activities in Kanchipuram. The Jiyargives the date Kali 4308 or A.D.1207 for the birth of Nampillai, whoappears to have lived upto A.D.1302, for he is credited with a life of 95years.

Nampillai was succeeded on the pontifical seat at Srirangam by PeriyaAccan Pillai. As a fastidious thinker and writer the latter produced, overand above his ‘24,000’, other commentaries on the four thousand sacredPrabandas, and composed various treatises, viz., Upakara-ratnam,Caramarahasyam, Manikkamalai, Navaratnamalai, etc., all in Manipravala.Periya Accan Pillai was succeeded by another disciple of Nampillai by nameVadakkuttiruvidi pillai.43 (The name means ‘the Pillai of the North Street’[of Srirangam]) he had composed a voluminous commentary on the Tiruvaimoli,called ‘the 36,000’ (well known as the Idu), containing the essence of thelectures of his guru, but due to some reason it remained in private handsuntil Manavala Mahamuni revised and published it to the outside world. Theson and successor of Vadakkuttiruvidi Pillai was Pillai Lokacarya, who was thefamous contemporary of Vedantadesika. His birth is placed in Kali 4366 orA.D.1265. He had a brother named Alagiyamanavala Perumal Nainar. Boththe brothers were deeply learned in the Prabanda school and working hand inhand they brought out a number of treatises mainly addressed to thecommon folk with a view to explain to them the doctrine of prapatti and thepurity of their own creed based on that doctrine. Their two chief workswere Sri Vacana Bhusana and Acarya Hridaya. They are 16 other minorworks attributed to Pillai Lokacarya like the Tani-Tirumantram, Artha-Pancakam, Tani-Caramam, etc., each explaining in lucid terms the meaningsof the texts of important mantras. These works called the Astadasa-rahasyas or ‘Eighteen Secrets’ from the first and basic text book of theTenkalai school and as such Pillai Lokacarya is held in high veneration by theTenkalais of today, to whom he is next only to Manavala Mahamuni.

According to the Vadakalai version Tirukkurugaippiran Pillan was thesuccessor of Ramanuja on the spiritual throne at Srirangam. Like Ramanujahe was exercising control over both the Bhasya and the Prabanda sides ofthe Vaisnava darsana. He was followed by Engal Alvan, whose disciple andsuccessor was the famous Nadadur Ammal or Varadacarya. His nativity isplaced in Kali 4266 or A.D.1165. Thus he was the elder contemporary ofNampillai on the Prabanda side. Varadacarya effected the epoch-makingtransfer of his residence and scene of lectures to Kanchipuram from

transfer of his residence and scene of lectures to Kanchipuram from

Srirangam, thus giving rise to the geographical factor of the split among theVaisnavas. This might have been due to several causes. For one thingKanchipuram was the native home of Varadacarya. Probably the vociferousactivities of Nampillai and his redoutable disciples caused him considerableembarassment and he might have withdrawn to Kanchipuram guided by his owninclination and convenience. It is also said that his particular devotion to GodVaradaraja of Kanchipuram was the cause of the transfer of headquarters.Whatever the cause the result was quite manifest. All scholars, whobelieved in the orthodox and traditional school flocked under the banners ofVaradacarya at Kanchipuram, leaving Nampillai and his disciples at Srirangamquite free to propagate their own protestant school of Vaisnavism. Thelatter protested against the exclusive, too orthodox and unduly ritualistictendencies visible in the efforts of the traditional followers of Ramanuja, andadvocated a “more popular, less ritualistic, and more devotional creed”. Theycondemned the rigidity of the caste system and advocated a democraticbasis for the Vaisnava religion. The result was obvious. In course of timeKanchipuram came to be identified with the Sanskrit and traditional school ofthe Bhasya, and Srirangam with the Tamil and popular school of thePrabanda. For all practical purposes, say by 1247, when Nampillai was fortyand Varadacarya eighty-two, the parties had begun; but it has to be clearlyunderstood that the partisan spirit, which brought into being twoirreconcilable sects called the Vadakalai and the Tenkalai made itsappearance only in the 15th century and later.44 (For some of the wrongexplanations of the origin of this split by western scholars seeV.Rangachari’s article (op.cit.) p.109, n.1.)

The Bhasya lectures of Varadacarya at Kanchipuram attracted allVaisnava scholars in the neighbourhood including, according to the VadakalaiGuruparamparai, Periya Accan Pillai and Vadakkuttiruvidi Pillai of Srirangam.His lectures on the Sribhasya were put into writing by one of his disciples,Sudarsanacarya, and this commentary came to be known as theSrutaprakasika. Tatvasara represented Varadacarya’s philosophicalteachings. He is said to have met Venkatanatha, Vedantadesika of a laterday, as a boy of five. Hence his death has to be placed sometime after1274-75, the date of Vedantadesika’s birth being 1269, according to allaccounts. Thus Varadacarya, like Ramanuja, is credited with a long life ofmore than 110 years. After Varadacarya Atreya Ramanuja alias Appillarsucceeded to the pontifical seat at Kanchipuram while Sundarsanacaryaundertook to discharge the duties of the Acarya at Srirangam. Appillarseems to have held the gadi only for a period of about 20 years for he issaid to have died after the completion of spiritual training and marriage of

said to have died after the completion of spiritual training and marriage of

Venkatanatha, who was his own nephew which event could be placed about1295, the 26th year of Venkatanatha. The latter was the famous successorof Apillar at Kanchipuram. Vedantadesika was born at Tuppil, a suburb ofKanchipuram in Kali 4370 or A.D.1268. His father was Anantasuri Somayaji,an orthodox Vaisnava of Kanci, While Totaramma, his mother was the sisterof Appillar. The child was supposed his mother was the sister of Appillar.The child was supposed to be an incarnation of the divine bell of the shrineof Srivenkatesa at Tirupati and an avatar of Ramanuja. As a young boy andstudent of Appillar Vedantadesika gave a clear indication of the prodigy hewas going to be in the future. His remarkable memory and precocious geniusenabled him to master all the branches of the Vedanta and the Prabandalore before he was twenty. After the demise of Appillar he was called uponto occupy the pontifical set at Kanchipuram. To obtain the grace of Garudahe went to Tiruvanindrapuram, where he stayed for a few years. There, inthe presence of God Devanayaka, he delivered his first lectures andcomposed his first panegyrics and a few years. There, in the presence ofGod Devanayaka, he delivered his first lectures and composed his firstpanegyrics and a few philosophical works. His panegyrics like Gopalavimsati,Garuda Pancasat, Hyagrivastotra, etc., were in Sanskrit. He also composeda few works in Tamil (manipravalam). Then he returned to Kanchipuram andspent a few years devoted to religious discourses and writing. His two chiefworks of this period were Varadarajapancasat, a famous poem on the God ofKanci, and Nyasadasaka, which was an exposition of the doctrine ofPrapatti. A large number of Tamil works containing the gist of his teachings,were also written during this period; some of them were theAdaikkalappattu, the Tiruccinnamalai, the Arthapancakam, etc., and also thewell known Hastigiri Mahatmya in manipravalam, being the stalapurana ofKanchipuram. A tour of northern India in the course of which he visited allthe sacred Vaisnava shrines north of Kanchipuram followed and the prominentincident mentioned is his meeting with the sage, Vidyaranya on the banks ofthe Tungabhadra.

Subsequent to his return to Kanchipuram a new set of circumstancesdeveloped in Srirangam, which necessitated the presence of Vedantadesikathere. It appears that a set of advaitins under an able leader challengedthe Vaisnava pontiffs at Srirangam to meet them in debate and defend theVisistadvaitta philosophy. The aged Sudarsana Bhatta felt himself unequal tothe task and the other leaders including Perio Accan Pillai and PillaiLokacarya, whose versatility on the Bhasya side, it is said, was not asprofound as on the Prabanda, did not rise to the occasion. The leadersgathered together and resolved to invite Vedantadesika from Kanchipuram to

gathered together and resolved to invite Vedantadesika from Kanchipuram to

Srirangam and entrust him with the defence of Visistadvaita. Acommunication was sent to Kanchipuram in the name of God Ranganatha,inviting Vedantadesika to assume supreme control over the affairs atSrirangam. In obedience to the divine command Desika migrated to Srirangamand defeated the Advaitins in a prolonged debate. Satadhusani is the famouscompendium of the arguments that he used to behalf of Visistadvaita in thecourse of this debate. Probably it was as a result of this achievement thatVedantadesika won for himself the significant titles of ‘Vedantacarya’,‘Kavitarkikasimha’, and ‘Brahmatantrasvatantra’. On the request of GodRanganatha, it is said Desika was obliged to prolong his stay at Srirangamand continue to exercise supreme control over the Vaisnava darsana.

Vedantadesika’s assumption of leadership at Srirangam came mostprobably soon after Malik Kafur’s raid in 1310-11.45 (In connection with hisstay at Srirangam we are referred to only one Muslim invasion, and that wasthe one headed by Ulugh Khan in 1323-24. It could not have been theearlier invasion because, according to tradition, Vedantadesika was activelyengaged in Srirangam for some years with the peaceful task of religiousinstruction and writing before he had to face the Muslim irruption; and ifthis invasion were the one which occurred in 1310-11 it is not possible toaccommodate the period of his active stay at Srirangam between the yearof his assumption of the gadi in that shrine, which according to tradition tookplace sometime after his 40th year (say 1311 or 1312), and the invasion(i.e., 1311). See also JBb RAS XXIV, pp.289-90.) His period of stay atSrirangam formed the most glorious chapter in his life. He carried on, at thesame time, with considerable endurance and persistence the prodigious taskof delivering religious lecturers and writing out commentaries as well asoriginal works. A few of his first works during this period were theTatvatika (a gloss on the Sribhasya), the Tatparyacandrika (a commentaryon the Gitabhasya), the Nyayasiddhanjana (a text book of Visistadvaitalogics), and the Tatvamuktakalapa (a study of the nature of the universe inthe light of Visistadvaita philosophy) together with a gloss on it called theSarvarthasiddhi. He wrote a large number of minor works explaining theideals of Srivaisnavism and the daily routine of an orthodox Srivaisnava andexpounding the meaning of the mantras. Some of them were the Saccaritra-raksa; the Rahasya raksa, the Pancaratra-raksa, the latvapadavi, theRahasyapadavi, and the like, some of which were in manipravalam.

At this point the Guruparamparai gives a few interesting details aboutVedantadesika’s controversies with non-vaisnavas. It is said that a greatdispute arose at Vijayanagar between Vidyaranya and Aksobhyamuni,

dispute arose at Vijayanagar between Vidyaranya and Aksobhyamuni,

representatives respectively of Advaita and Dvaita philosophies. Unable toarrive at a decision the arbiters made arrangements through the king torefer the dispute to Vedantadesika, who decided in favour of Aksobhya.Vidyaranya was enraged at this and wrote back to Desika criticising thesuperfluity of a single letter ca in this work Satadhusani (of course not beingable to point out any genuine mistake). Vedantadesika was not dismayed andhe wrote a pamphlet called Cakarasamarthana, defending the retention ofthat letter in his work. The contemporaneity of Vedantadesika, Vidyaranyaand Aksobhayamuni need not be doubted, but it is certain thatVedantadesika’s arbitration could not have happened during the period of hisstay at Srirangam. i.e., before the Muslim invasion of his stay atSrirangam. i.e., before the Muslim invasion of 1323, for the controversybetween Vidyaranya and Aksobyamuni, said to have taken place in the courtof Vijayanagar and in the royal presence, must be dated sometime after1336, the date of foundation of Vijayanagar. It is known that Aksobhyahimself occupied the Madhava pontifical seat only between the years 1350and 1367; and hence it is definite that the controversy and arbitrationreferred to by the Vaibhava-prakasika have to be accommodated betweenthese two dates. It is also known that at this period Srirangam wasoccupied by the Muslims and that Vedantadesika was living at an exile inSatyamangalam. It may be held probable that he wrote out the famouscouplet passing judgement in favour of Aksobhya46 (‘Asina tatvamasinaparajiva prabhodina Vidyaranya maharanyam Aksobhyamuni raccinath’) eitherfrom Satyamangalam or Vijayanagar, to which place he might have proceededat royal invitation.

Another interesting detail mentioned in the Guruparamparai is thecontroversy that Vedantadesika had with an Advaitin by name Krisnamisra.Unable to face Desika in a philosophic debate Krisnamisra offered to theVaisnava leader his Advaitic drama entitled Prabodacandrodaya andchallenged whether he could produce anything like it. Immediately Desikacomposed in a single night, we are told, his well known Visistadvaitic dramaSankalpasuryodaya. In the same way a certain Dindimakavi is said to havechallenged Desika with his work Ramabhyudaya when Desika composed inreply two poems the Yadavabhyudaya and the Hamsasandesa, and thus putDindimakavi to shame. The story of the meeting with Krisnamisra, whobelonged to the 12th century, only means that Desika studied the former’sPrabodacandrodaya and in reply to it wrote the Sankalpasuryodaya. Asregards his meeting with Dindimakavi, it has to be said that no Dindimakavi,who was the contemporary of Vedantadesika and author of a work calledRamabhyudaya is known to history. This mixture of fact and legend may

Ramabhyudaya is known to history. This mixture of fact and legend may

perhaps be taken to signify the uncompromising nature of the mind ofVedantadesika, who evidently gave no rest to himself or peace to hisphilosophical opponents.

It was not in the nature of things that the party of Pillai Lokacaryaand his brother Alagiyamanavala Perumal Nainar should have looked upon therising popularity of Vedantadesika with equanimity. Many incidents of pettyconflict and heart-burning are related in the Guruparamparai. The upshot ofthe growing discontent on the part of the Tenkalai party at Srirangam was achallenge thrown at Vedantadesika by Alagiyamanavala Perumal Nainar; thelatter proclaimed that Desika could retain his title Kavitarkikasimha only ifhe undertook to compose, in a competition with himself a 1000 verses on theLord in the course of a single night. Vedantadesika joined the competitionand easily completed, we are told, a 1000 verses on the sandals of God, wellknown as the Paduka-sahasram before it was dawn, while his rival couldfinish only 300 verses on the feet of God. Above all Vedantadesika’s positionin Srirangam could not be weakened because he was as strong on thePrabanda side as on the Bhasya. He is credited with a monumentalcommentary on the Divyaprabandas called the ‘74000’, which, if it had beenactually written, is lost irretrievably to the scholars of the present day.The collection of his beautiful Tamil verses on the Prabandas, called theDesikaprabandam and many short treatises on the Mantra, the Dvaya, thecaramasloka and the Gita, however are a standing testimony to hisproficiency on the Prabanda side of the Vaisnava lore.

From the above account it is clear that the Srirangam temple haddeveloped, on the eve of the Muslim invasion (of 1323), into a great centreof peaceful and progressive religious and literary activity and suppliedinspiration to some of the leading lights among the Vaisnavas of the age tocompose works of intense religious fervour and devotion. The Muslims underUlugh Khan descended upon Srirangam like a whilwind in 1323, massacred ahelpless ‘army’ of 12,000 ascetics that were guarding the shrine andoccupied the temple, which at once ceased to be a place of worship andbecame instead a scene of intense desolation and gloom. The party of PillaiLokacarya, who it may be supposed had greater control over theadministration of the temple took immediate charge of the images of the Godand the Goddess and fled in a southern direction for safety. Vedantadesikahimself fled to Satyamangalam on the Kaveri (sometimes identified with aplace called Satyagalam, near Kollegal), with the single manuscript of theSrutaprakasika of the aged Sudarsanacarya of the Kuram family and his twolittle sons, Vedacarya Bhatta and Parasara Bhatta.47 (From Satyamangalam

little sons, Vedacarya Bhatta and Parasara Bhatta.47 (From Satyamangalam

Vedantadesika went to Tirunarayanapuram. Here he is said to have composeda work called Abhithistavam praying for the restoration of the Srirangamtemple and his return to the shrine. (Vedantadesika-Vaibhavam, Tamil, byP.B.Annagaracharyar, Kanchipuram, 1962-p.17.)

The Telugu chiefs and the Srivaisnava Acaryas of Srirangam

That certain Telugu chiefs were the disciples of Vaisnava Acaryas ofSrirangam about the first half of the 14th century is attested by traditionas well as inscriptions. The Guruparamparai, while dealing with the stay ofVedantadesika in Srirangam just before the Muslim invasion of 1323, saysthat Sarvajna Singappa, a chieftain of the north sent messengers toSrirangam to fetch Vedantadesika to his capital with a view to seek spiritualguidance at the feet of the Acarya. Vedantadesika, who was himself unableto proceed to the north, had the magnanimity to compose for the sake ofthe royal suppliant a few works explaining the gist of his teachings and sendthem along with the messengers to the chieftain. The works under referenceare said to be the Subhasitanivi, with its commentary, the Ratnapetika, theTatvasandesa, the Rahasyasandesa and its commentary the Rahasyasandesa-vivarana.48 (JBb RAS XXIV, p.300.)

The Telugu chieftain, who became a disciple of Vedantadesika, hasvariously been identified. The Vaibhavaprakasika, says that he was the sonof Madhava Nayaka and the ruler of Ekasilanagari-Rajamahendrapattana.This capital has been identified by some with Vontimitta in the Cuddapahdistrict, said to have formed part of the Venkatagiri zamindari, whose chiefwas Sarvagna Singa. It is also held that he was the tenth in descent fromCevi Reddi alias Betala Naidu, the founder.49 (Ibid., foot note.) But thesesurmises can be given up in favour of his identification with Singaya, theyounger brother of Mummadi Nayaka, the chief of Korukonda, who it isknown from inscriptions was the disciple of Parasara Bhatta VII ofSrirangam. The Srirangam plates of Mummadi Nayaka dated S.1280(A.D.1358) record that Mummadi, the king of the Telinga country, grantedto Bhatta Parasara, the seventh, the village of Kottallaparru, which thedonce’s mother regranted to God Sriranganatha of Srirangam.50 (EI, XIV,pp.83 ff.) The inscription states that this chief belonged to the family ofMancikonda and that he ruled over the Telugu country bounded on the northby Kanya-kubja, on the south by the Pandya country, on the east by Kalingaand on the west by Maharastra, and with its capital at Korukonda. Hisconquests included the Panara, the Kona, the Kuravataka, the Chengara andother countries lying on either side of the Godavari. He is said to have

other countries lying on either side of the Godavari. He is said to have

married the niece of Kapaya Nayaka, the Telugu chief, who played a leadingrole in freeing Warangal and the neighbouring tracts from the Muslim yoke asearly as 1330.51 (N.Venkataramanayya, Early Muslim Expansion in SouthIndia, pp.169-72.) Mummadi became a disciple of Parasara Bhatta VII(i.e., the seventh in descent from Parasara Bhatta I or Kurattalvan, thewell known disciple of Ramanuja) when the latter had gone over to theTelingadesa. The village was granted to him as Gurudaksina. Kurattalvan aliasSrivatsacihna Misra had two sons Parasara Bhatta and Rama Misra. RamaMisra’s son was Vagvijaya Bhatta alias Naduviltiruvidi Pillai Bhattar. His sonwas Vedavyasa alias Sudarsana Bhatta, the author of the Srutaprakasika.He had two sons Vedacarya Bhatta and Parasara Bhatta, the later of whomfigures as the donee of this epigraph. Mummadi assumed the titleSrirangavardhana probably in commenmoration of his having become the pupilof Parasara Bhatta of Srirangam. An inscription dated in A.D.1353 fromKorukonda refers, in confirmation of the Srirangam copper plates, toMummadi and Parasara Bhatta as pupil and teacher.52 (EI XIV, p.84; ARE1913, Pt.II, para 71.)

Mummadi Nayaka was the great grandson of Kesami Nayaka and hehad to brothers by name Singaya and Gannaya. The disciple ofVedantadesika might very well have been the elder of the two brothers.While Mummadi chose Parasara Bhatta VII as his guru Singaya might havechose Parasara Bhatta VII as his guru Singaya might have chosen his elderand more famous contemporary, viz., Vedantadesika even earlier, say about1325.

The Institution of the Adina of Sriranganarayana Jiyar

One of the historically important adjuncts of the Srirangam temple isthe office of Sriranganarayana Jiyar, which was created by the Stalattarof the temple sometime before the Muslim invasions The Koil-Olugu, theAnnan Tirumaligai Olugu and the Sriranganarayana Jiyar Guruparamparaifurnish details of the installation of this Adina. Kuranarayana Jiyar, said tobe a disciple of Kurattalvan, was the first occupant of the gadi ofSriranganarayana Jiyar. The Guruparamparai says that he ascended the gadiin the Pallavesvaran mutt in S.1048 or A.D.1126. He was a great saint anda maha-mantrica (i.e. having considerable mystical power). As a resident ofSrirangam he is credited with many valuable services to the town, to thetemple and to the Perumal. He foiled the attempt of a wicked Sannyasi ofSeringapatam to remove the Ranganatha image from Srirangam to his owntown by means of his mantric powers, put an end to the hostile activities of

town by means of his mantric powers, put an end to the hostile activities of

the Saivas of Jambukesvaram, rescued the images of the Perumal and theNacciyar from being swept away by a swift current in the Kaveri in thecourse of a float festival in the month of Adi, constructed firm embankmentsof the Kaveri and stopped the havoc caused to parts of Srirangam byoccasional floods in the river, dug out a huge tank to the west of the templefor conducting the float festival, repaired various parts of the temple andinstalled in the temple various deities like Vasanta Gopala Hayagriva,Vedavyasa, Gnanappiran, Parthasarathy, Vittalesvara and others.53(KO.pp.114-125) These services naturally endeared the Jiyar to theinhabitants of Srirangam, who were eager to associate him with theresponsible headship of the temple. According to the arrangements,established by Udayavar, however, the descendents of Mudaliyandan wereexercising control over the administration of the temple. But PeriyaVaradacaryar alias Periya Ayi, the great grandson of Mudaliyandan, who wasthen exercising the Srikaryam, understood the popular wish and willingly tookKuranarayana Jiyar into the service of the temple and assigned to himcertain duties and also the Pallavarayan mutt. In course of time the Jiyar,known as Sriranganarayana Jiyar, acquired considerable power and prestigein the temple organisation as well as control over the religious code. His wasan office elected by the temple parijanas and not a hereditary one.54 (It isnot possible to reconcile the divers accounts of the local chronicles regardingthe foundation of the gadi of Sriranganarayana Jiyar. Since the Koil-Oluguand the Annan Tirumaligai Olugu make him the contemporary of Periya Ayi,the great grandson of Mudaliyandan and grand father of SrirangarajanathanVaduladesika, the manager of the temple during the invasion of 1323, hemay be assigned to the 13th century.

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORYChapter 7

THE RESTORATION AND REORGANISATION OF THE SRIRANGAMTEMPLE UNDER THE FIRST EMPERORS OF VIJAYANAGAR

The Restoration of the Temple

Putting together the literary and epigraphic evidences it can be saidthat Ma’bar was conquered by the Vijayanagar princes in the course ofthree expeditions in 1351-52, 1360-61 and 1371.1(Dr.N.Venkataramanayya, Jmu. XI, 57, 63.) A few names like SaluvaMangu, Saluva Gunda and Gopana figure in these expeditions. These weregenerals who served under Kumara Kampana. It is not possible to assess withexactitude the success that attended on each one of these three, but it isdefinite that the final blow against the Muslims in the south was struck onlyin 1371, in which year the Srirangam temple was freed from the Muslimyoke. In fact works like the Jaimini Bharatam, Saluvabhyudayam andRamabhyudayam that throw considerable light on the early Vijayanagarconquests make prominent mention of the restoration and reconsecration ofthe Srirangam temple. Above all there is the inscription of Gopanarya in theSrirangam temple, which assigns the event to 1371.2 (EI.VI. pp.322 ff‘Hail! Prosperity! In the Saka year (expressed by the chronogram)Bandhupriya i.e., S.1293); (Verse 1) Having brought (The God) from theAnjanadri (mountain), the splendour of whose darkish peaks gives delight tothe world, having worshipped (him) at Chenchi for sometime, then having slainthe Tulushkas, whose bows were raised, - Gopanarya, the mirror of fame,placing Ranganatha together with both Lakshmi and the Earth in His owntown (Srirangam) again duly performed excellent worship.

(Verse 2) Having carried Rangaraja, the Lord of the World, from the slopeof the Vrishabagiri (mountain) to his capital (Chenchi), having slain by hisarmy the proud Tulushka soldiers having made the site of Sriranga unitedwith the golden age (Krita yuga), and having placed there this (God) togetherwith Lakshmi and the earth, - the Brahmana Gopana duly performs like thelotus-born (Brahma) the worship which has to be practiced”. The Koil-Oluguquotes this inscription and says that Gopana, who was one of the officers ofHarihararaya (Harihara II), with his residence at Cenci or Gingee (SouthArcot district), once came to Tirupati, where the images of the God and theGoddess of Srirangam had been kept for safety. This general, who was a

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a y

Brahmana, took the images to Singapuram near Gingee, where he housedthem in the local shrine for sometime. Narasimhadeva alias Singappiran, whowas playing the part of the agent of the Muslims at Srirangam, watched thedevelopment carefully and opened secret negotiations with Gopana atSingapuram. Thus apprised of the strength of the Muslim garrison atKannanur Gopana came with a large force and inflicted severe defeat on theMuslims (i.e. the army of Alauddin Sikander Shah, the last Sultan ofMadurai).3 (According to the Prapannamritam Sriranganatha appeared toGopana in a dream and exhorted him to strike against the Muslims andrestore Him to Srirangam.) Perhaps a great battle, of which we have noaccount, was fought at Kannanur and this Muslim stronghold of Ma’bar waswrested once for all from the hands of the enemy. Gopana brought theimages from Singapuram and reinstalled them in Srirangam on the 17th ofVaikasi in the year Paridap, S.1293. This corresponds with Virodhakrit andnot Paridapi and 17th of Vaikasi S.1293 is equivalent to 13th of May 1371.On this day, says the inscription, “Gopanarya, the mirror of fame, placingRanganatha together with Laksmi and the Earth (Sri and Bhu in His own town(Srirangam) again duly performed excellent worship”. According to thePrapannamritam the verses in the inscription were composed byVedantadesika, who returned to Srirangam from his exile and witnessed ingreat delight the reconsecration of the images. The Guruparamparai saysthat Vedantadesika breathed his last in Kali 4470 or A.D.1368. Laying toomuch emphasis on the traditional dates (which credit Desika with a life of100 years, i.e., from Kali 4370 to Kali 4470) some scholars have comeforward to question the date of this inscription, may the validity of theepigraph itself, which is said to be unusual in character; Vedantadesika, whodied in 1368, we are told, could not have witnessed the reconsecration andcomposed the verses in praise of Gopana in 1371. Hence the restoration ofthe temple must have taken place sometime before 1369.4 (JBbRAS.XXIV.p.308 n.2) Clearly it is too much to question the inscription and its date onthe basis of tradition. Either Vedantadesika did not compose the verses orhe died sometime after 1371. The latter is the more probable alternative.Subsequent to the restoration Vedantadesika settled, according to tradition,once again in Srirangam and spent a few years in peaceful religious activitybefore his death, during which period he wrote his famousRahasyatrayasara, elaborately explaining the doctrine of self-surrender. Forthe sake of convenience we may assume that Vedantadesika died in 1380;and sticking to tradition, which credits him with a hundred years, his lifemay be said to have extended from 1280 to 1380.

The Jaimini Bharatamu, the Saluvabhyudayam and the Ramabhyudayam

mention Saluva Mangu or Mangi in connection with the restoration of theSrirangam temple.5 (The first is a Telugu work by PillalamarriPinavirabhadra, while the second and the third are Sankskrit works,respectively by Rajanatha Dindima and Saluva Narasimha.) Saluva Mangu wasthe chief among the ancestors of Saluva Narasimha, the first king of theSaluva or the second dynasty of Vijayanagar. According to the first workMangu is said to have defeated and killed the Sultan of Madurai in battleand to have established the God of Srirangam in His temple. On the latteroccasion he is said to have presented to the God 60,000 madas of Gold.6(Dr.S.K.Aiyangar, Sources p.29.) According to the other two works SaluvaMangu is said to have made a gift to the Srirangam temple of 1,000salagramas and eight villages to represent the eight syllables of theastaksara and to have earned the name of the “establisher of Sriranga.”7(Ibid., pp.30-31, 32.) The inscription mentions only Gopana while the worksmentioned above refer to Mangu. As a matter of fact both were generalsunder Kampana, the son of Bukka.8 (Ibid. p.29 and p.35.) The literaryworks make exclusive references to Saluva Mangu because they are alldedicated to the members of the Saluva dynasty. The Koil-Olugu mentionsGopana Udayar and Gundu Saluva Aiyar (Saluva Gunda) as the munificentbenefactors of the temple on the occasion of its restoration. Gopana udayaris said to have donated to the temple, through Uttamanambi, 52 villages atan expense of 17,000 gold pieces. Gundu Saluva Aiyar, who came with himerected a flag-staff of bell-metal in the Aniyarangan court-yard in theplace of the old gold flagstaff that had been established by JatavarmanSundara Pandya I and which was destroyed by the Muslims.9 (KO.p.135-36.) There were several Gundas in the Saluva family and it is highly probablethat the Gundu Saluva Aiyar of the Olugu was Gunda, the elder brother ofSaluva Mangu.10 (Sources, p.32.) It is quite likely that Gopana, SaluvaMangu and his brother Saluva Gunda were present at the ceremonies ofreconsecration of the temple and made several gifts. The restoration of theSrirangam temple see the seal, as it were, upon the liberation of the Tamilcountry from the Muslim yoke. In 1372-73 Kampana II occupied Kannanurand an inscription of his dated 1372 from the Poysalesvara temple says thatthe shrine was demolished upto the adharasilai (adhistana or base stone) andconverted into a mosque by the Muslims during the period of their occupationand that after Kampana’s conquest this temple was reopened for worship.11(162 of 1936-37; pt.II, para 51.) An inscription in the Srirangam templedated 1373 registers gift of a Kalmatha to Pradhani Vitthappar, son ofApparaju of the Bharadwaja gotra, for having recovered certain lands andrendered other help to the temple.12 (47 of 1938-39.) Another inscription,

says that this Vithappa formed a pasture land for the temple near the YogaNarasimha Shrine.13 (48 of 1938-39.)

The Re-organisation of the Temple

The complete reduction of the Muslim power at the hands of thegenerals of Kampana II left the Srirangam temple free but much moreremained to be done before the temple could once more function as a self-supporting institution. Worship had practically ceased; there was a dispersalof the literatures and officers of the temple; many structures had sufferedwanton destruction; gold plates covering pillars, walls and vimanas had beenpeeled off and golden idols carried away; the temple treasury and granarieshad been emptied and the jewels and valuable plundered; and more than allthe temple was reduced to a state of wretchedness and poverty, all thedevadana lands having been overrun. The two inscriptions referred to abovejust provide an indication of the problem of recovering the temple lands. Thefirst task that had to be faced by the stalattar of the temple was thecollection of funds in cash and kind from various benefactors. The temple, inshort, had to be given a new life. The officers of the temple who rose tothe occasion and managed its affairs with credit were the Uttamanambis ofSrirangam, who as wardens of the temple, built up close connections with thecourt of Vijayanagar.

The constitution of a new committee to appoint persons to look afterthe property of the temple is mentioned in an inscription on the south wall ofthe second prakara. Engraved in Tamil characters of the 14th century itmay be assigned to this period. Without mentioning any names it purports tobe an order issued by God Ranganatha directing a council of 23 members -10 selected out of the 10 kottus or groups of temple servants, 4 from thesanyasins and the desantris, 5 representing the 18 mandalas and 4representing the Cera, Cola, and Pandya kings and the Ksatriyas of thenorth - to appoint Sanyasins versed in Vaisnava lore and with the interestsof the temple at heart, to look after the properties of the temple situatedin several places, with provision made for their maintenance. ArmedVelaikaras were placed at their disposal to help them in the discharge oftheir duties.14 (51 of 1938-39; pt.II para 71. ‘Sanyasis well versed inVaisna lore’ refers to Vaisnava Acaryas, who, it was expected, wouldcommand respect and act disinterestedly ‘Cera, Cola, Pandya kings andKsatriyas of the north’ refers to the rulers of the period, in general.

Harihararaya II (1377-1404) and Periya Krisnarayar Uttamanambi (1383-97)

The Uttamanambis are one of the ancient and important families ofSrirangam.15 (This is commemorated by the saying ur padi Uttamanambi padimeaning ‘the town is 50% and the Uttamanambis 50%’.) These areBrahmanas of the purvasikha sect and their name has for long beenassociated with the administration of the Srirangam temple. In theirgenealogy, the Uttamanambivamsa-prabhavam, they claim descent fromPeriyalvar, who migrated from Srivilliputtur to Srirangam, and trace acontinuous succession. Much of the earlier part of this genealogy cannot beverified, but from the point of the Muslim invasions and the Vijayanagarrestoration that followed, the chronicle becomes some-what dependable indetails, which find corroboration in the Guruparamparai and the Koil-Olugu aswell as in inscriptions. Periya Krisnarayar Uttamanambi (No.80 in theVamsaprabhavam) is said to have invited Kampana II, the son of Bukka I, topay a visit to the temple. Kampana, who was very much pleased with thesight of the God, made a donation of 16,000 gold pieces for acquiringDevadana lands, while his minister (pradhani) made another donation of 1,000gold pieces for the same purpose. Both the gifts were handed over to PeriyaKrisnarayar Uttamanambi who purchased, with this amount, 62 villages forthe temple. Here perhaps we get more details of the account, referred toabove, of the Koil-Olugu about Gopanarya’s donation to the temple of 52villages at a cost of 17,000 gold pieces. The Vamsaprabhavam says furtherthat this Uttamanambi collected another sum of 5,000 gold pieces fromViruppana Udayar (younger brother of Harihara II and third son of Bukka I)and purchased with it 13 more villages for the temple. All this was done inone year, i.e., in 1371, the year of the restoration; for in 1372, it wouldappear, Periya Krisnarayar Uttamanambi went on a visit to the court ofVijayanagar. The Koil-Olugu, under the date S.1294 (A.D.1372) gives aninteresting account of this visit.16 (KO. pp.136-38.) Soon after therestoration there took place the characteristic dispute over the preferentialtirtha honours between the Kandadais, who were the descendents ofMudaliyandan, and the occupant of the newly created office ofSriranganarayana Jiyar. The Durgadipati or the agent of the Raya ofVijayanagar (i.e. Saluva Gunda) is said to have encouraged the Jiyar to thedetriment of the hereditary rights of the Kandadaiyar. The latter soughtthe interference of Gopana at Cenji but it was all in vain. Kandadaiyar thenrequested the Uttamanambi to go to Vijayanagar and lay his case before theRaya. At the same time the cultivators of the temple lands were alsoconsiderably worried over the question of submitting accounts to the Rayaand obtaining royal recognition of their hereditary rights. Uttamanambiagreed to proceed to Vijayanagar on both these counts, i.e., on behalf of

the Kandadaiyar as well as the cultivators. No details of his interview withthe Raya are furnished. The Annan Tirumaligai Olugu simply says that heobtained for Kandadai Tolappa supreme control over the temple. When hewent to Vijayanagar again, after a few years, he was commanded byViruppana Udayar to erect a tulapurusamantapa in the temple to the east ofthe flagstaff. After this mantapa was built the latter came to Srirangamand performed the rulapurusa ceremony. Harihararaya too is said to haveperformed such a ceremony. These luxurious donations yielded a large amountof gold and with its help the Sriranga vimana was once again restored to itspristine dignity. It was covered with gold plates and adorned with nine goldkalasas. According to an inscription Krisnarayakavi (same as KrishnarayaUttamanambi) gave to God Ranganatha gold ornaments, utensils, etc., andmade endowments for special festivals. He also provided for the Godvehicles, various mantapas, gopuras and large gardens. He constructed broadbeautiful streets. He was protecting Rangaraja-nagari just as the city ofMadhura by the descendant of Yadu.17 (South Indian Temple Inscription(Madras Government Oriental series), Vol.III, pt.II, Inscription No.1269,p.No.1300.) This member of the Uttamanambi family, thus, did much torestore the glory of the temple and paved the way for further work by hismore famous son. Incidentally it is to be noted that this inscription refers tohim as a kavi. Tirumaladhisa, the author of the Laksmikavya, was his greatgrandson.

There are several inscriptions of Viruppana Udayar (or Virupaksa II),the second son of Harihara II, in the Srirangam temple ranging between thedates 1383 and 1396.18 (88 of 1937-38, Pt.II, para 60; 72, 76, 77, 87,88, 153 and 154 of 1938-39; Pt.II, para 42 and 187 of 1951-52.‘Viruppana’ or ‘Virupanna’ appears to be a variant of the Sanskrit form ofVirupaksa, who was appointed viceroy of the Tamil country by Harihara II.(Virupanna or Virupaksa I, a son of Bukka I, was a governor Penukondaduring his father’s reign 1356-77). See table, Historical Inscriptions ofSouth India, R.Sewell and S.K.Aiyangar, p.400) A record dated in theformer year registers a gift of cows for lighting a ghee lamp bySomanathadeva, son of Vittappa, a pradhani of the prince. An undatedinscription in Sanskrit carved on the Capitals of two pillars in themukhamantapa of the Cakrattalvar shrine states that he constructed thevimana, gopura and mantapa for god Cakrin and that he made a further giftof the village Paccil. Another inscription dated 1385 registers a gift of cowsfor the supply of milk to the Ranganatha temple by Devaraja, son ofSangamamatya or Sangamarasa, another pradhani of the prince, who wasappointed the governor of the Tamil country. According to another record

the same donor provided for a lamp too. Yet another officer of the princewas Mantri Muddarasa of the Kasyapa gotra, who is said to have made agift of land for a flower garden and in addition a gift of 20 cows for aperpetual lamp. An inscription dated 1390 registers the gift of 30 cows anda perpetual lamp by Annappa Udaiyar Chaundappa, son of Vithappa of Vatsagotra. The latest record in this series, dated 1396 states that AnnapparChaundappa, son of Vittapangal of the Srivatsa gotra of Jaula inVeluvaladesa (Belvola) (same as the donor in the above record) made for thegod a tiruvasigai (aureola), repaired the 1,000 pillared mantapa andconsecrated Vitthala therein, gilded the vimana of the central shrine(Koyilalvar) and provided for offerings and worship to the God. Theserecords make it clear that Virupaksa took an active interest in therestoration of the Srirangam temple. The Koil-Olugu says that thedhvajarohona ceremony of the Cittirai festival was conducted in the name ofViruppana, who “enabled the people coming from all parts of the country tovisit the long missed Perumal and to obtain seva.”19 (KO. p.138.) Theassociation of Viruppana with the Cittirai festival has survived and thefestival is even today called the Viruppan tirunal. The Olugu also says thathe built the shrine of Sudarsana Perumal and installed an image of Narasimhatherein, but gives the date 1444 which must be wrong.20 (Ibid.; p.149.)

After Periya Krisnarayar Uttamanambi Vedacarya Bhatta, a son ofthe Srutaprakasikacarya (i.e., Sudarsanacarya), is said to haveadministered the temple from Isvara to Vikrama (A.D. 1397-1401). Hishigh handedness and mismanagement led to the interference of the Raya,who sent one Timmaraja to remove Vedacarya Bhatta from office and installMainilaiyitta Uttamanambi in his stead. Vedacarya Bhatta is said to haveappropriated to himself the control over the shrine of Udayavar in theSrirangam temple; this he managed to keep with himself by coming to anunderstanding with Timmaraja and Uttamanambi in the year Vikari(A.D.1419).21 (Ibid. pp.143-45.)

Inscriptions of Bukka II (1405-1406) and Devaraya I (1406-1422)

An inscription of Bukka II in the Srirangam temple dated 1405registers a gift of some land, cows and a silver salver by SivandelundanSamantanar, who it is known, was the officer of Bukka II, in charge of theTrichinopoly region. The gifts were for providing offerings to the God ofSrirangam. Another record mentions Devaraya I as king.22 (86 of 1937-38;pt. II, para 61; 60 of 1938-39, pt.II, para 43.) It consists of threeSanskrit verses. The first extols the king, playing a pun on the names of

the cyclic years. “Having become king in Parthiva and destroyed his enemiesin Vyaya Devaraya would become all conquering (Sarvajit) and all-supporting(Sarvadhari)”. The second verse states that Uttamanambi got fromDevaraya a pearl umbrella, a big kahala, a pair of dipikas or lamp stands,bhadrasana or throne and similar royal emblems as honours evidently onbehalf of the temple. The third verse states that in the cyclic yearManmatha 1415 an image of Garuda was consecrated by Cakraraya, thebrother of Uttamanambi. The Koil-Olugu says that Cakraraya recast thecopper sannidhi Garuda, which had been destroyed during the Muslimoccupation and installed it in the Alagiyamanavalan tirumantapa.23(KO.p.157.) Another record in the temple dated 1409 mentionsMahamandalesvara Vira Bhupati Udayar (son of Bukka II and grandson ofHarihara II) as the donor. It states that as his gift of 80 pon forconducting a 9 day festival to God Ranganatha in his own name, ending on theday of his natal star punarpusam in the month of Tai, was found insufficienthe increased it by another gift of 55 pon and left the conduct of thecharity in charge of Uttamanambi.24 (59 of 1938-39.) This Uttamanambiwas Valiyadimai-nilaiyitta Uttamanambi, son of Periya KrisnarayarUttamanambi. An inscription dated 1410 registers gift of land, house-siteand a portion of the offered food of the temple to Ellayar, son ofSangamadeva of Kasmiradesam and of the Gautama gotra as Yainopavitakkani (i.e., for the supply of Yajnopavitas).25 (71 of 1938-39.)The next record, a copper-plate grant, dated 1414 registers the grant ofthe village Naruvuru (Nerur in Karur Taluk, Thiruchirapalli district) toUttamanambi, the sthanika of the Ranganatha temple by HarihararayaOdeya (son of Virapratapa Devaraya I), who was the viceroy of a part ofthe present day Coimbatore district with headquarters at Cevurakota (Sevurin Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore district).26 (C.P.No.27 of 1935-6; EI. XVI,pp.222-23.) This village was originally granted to one Appannagalu, but onlya few days later the donee seems to have handed over the management ofthe donation to Uttamanambi, a person who was intimately connected withthe Srirangam temple and hence could manage the charity moreadvantageously. It was stipulated in the grant that Uttamanambi, thetransferee, was to hold a subordinate position (ediridu) to Appannagalu, thetransferor, with reference to the grant. According to the deed of gift toUttamanambi the village of Naruvuru was to be christened Ranganathapura; adaily service to God Ranganatha with the full round of offerings of foods,waving camphor lights, sandal paste, flower garland, incense, etc., was to beinstituted, a flower-garden of the extent of 120 kulis of land was to becultivated and garlands supplied for the special service known as

Padinettampadi-servai; a cattra or choultry was to be constructed withinthe premises of the Srirangam temple and twelve Brahmanas fed dailytherein with rice, dhal, ghee, four vegetable curries, butter milk, togetherwith betal-leaves and nuts; and eight Brahmanas in the village of Naruvuruwere to be given each four ma of wet land rent free. The Uttamanambi ofthis record is undoubtedly the same as Valiyadimanilaiyitta PerumalUttamanambi, who was the warden of the Srirangam temple between theyears 1407 and 1450. An inscription dated 1420 registers gift of 4 velis ofland Melmuri-Mavadumangalam in Malainadu by Madhavadasa, pradhana-Mallanam of Candragiri, to meet the expenses of offerings immediately afterthe early morning service everyday to God Ranganatha. It also registers giftof 30 cows for maintaining a perpetual lamp by the same person. The last inthe series is dated 1422. The donor is Vijaya-Bhupatiraya-Maharaya(second son of Devaraya I and father of Devaraya II, whoseems to havereigned for a few months). The epigraph registers his gift of the villageKumarakkudi, in Malai-nadu, a sub-division of Rajaraja valanadu, on thenorthern bank (of the Kaveri) as a dandikai-jivita to Uttamanambi.27 (53 of1938-39).

Inscriptions of Devaraya II 1422-1446: Uttamanambi and Cakraraya: TheGreat age of Re-organisation and Prosperity.

Several inscriptions of Devaraya II in the Srirangam temple testify toits growing prosperity under royal patronage. The earliest of these, acopper-plate grant, dated 1427 registers the grant by Devaraya II of thevillages, Pandamangalam, Tirunalur and Seranaivenraperumanallur in theRajaghambiravalanadu (i.e., south of the Kaveri) and Sunepuhanalur in theRarajavalanadu (i.e., north of the Kaveri), made to the temple ofRanganatha on the Utthanadvadasi tithi in the bright half of the month ofKarthikai in the year Plavanga.28 (EI XVII, pp.110 ff.) This grant was anauxiliary to the Go-sahasra mahadana or ‘gift of a 1,000 cows’. Out of theincome from these villages, viz., 1,823 kulagadyanas, 12 perpetual lampswere to be burnt, flower-garlands supplied and one festival celebrated. Thisdonation, it may be supposed, was handed over to the charge ofUttamanambi, though the name is not mentioned in the grant. An inscriptionin the temple dated 1429 registers gift of a village Hasti Colendramangalamdisciple of Ramacandra Saraswati for the offering to Sriranganatha of foodin six gold vessels, offering garlands, etc.29 (55 of 1938-39; alsoS.I.Temple Inscriptions II, pp.734-35.)

About half-a-dozen inscriptions of Devaraya II at Srirangam mention

Uttamanambi and his brother Cakraraya.30 (ARE 1937-38; pt.II, para 63and ARE 1938-39; pt.II, para 45.) A set of his copper plates dated 1434register the grant by the king of the villages of Naccikkuricci,Tiruvaranganallur and Ramanarayananallur in the Rajaghambira-valanadu, andKumarakkudi and Rajanarayananallur to Valiyadimai-nilaiyitta PerumalUttamanambi, son of Uttamanambi, the Sthanapathi of the Srirangamtemple. With the help of the income from the villages Uttamanambi was toconduct the daily worship of the God.31 (EI.XVIII, pp.138 ff.) A stoneinscription of this king records the gift of the villages of Sundekkayi,Kovattakkudi, Todeyur and Karugule to Uttamanambi and his brotherCakraraya, for a service instituted in his own name.32 (121 of 1937-38.)Another registers a royal order issued to Chaudappa granting two villages toUttamanambi for conducting worship.33 (119 of 1937-38.) Anotherinscription states that Uttamanambi was the recipient of the presents of apearl-umbrella, a pair of kahalas (blow-pies) and of dipikas, a golden vesseland an ivory shielf from the king Praudha-Devaraya.34 (84 of 1937-38) Itwas mentioned above that he had received similar gifts from Devaraya I aswell. Cakraraya is said to have constructed a portion of the Perumaltolan-tirumantapa in the west verandah of the third prakara of the temple,cleared the jungle to the east of the temple and established a colony in theprecincts of the shrine of Alagiyasinga (kattalagiyasingar), built a mantapa infront of the shrine of Annamurti, and installed an image of Hanuman in amantapa nearby, and the image of Laksmi in a porch which he erected nearthe temple kitchen.35 (80 and 82 of 1937-38; pt.II, para 63.) He is alsocredited with the installation of the Dasavatara images in a temple on thesouthern bank of the Coleroon in Srirangam in 1438.36 (83 of 1937-38) Anundated record says that Cakraraya presented eight elephants to GodRanganatha.37 (89 of 1937-38) Another undated record lists the severalgifts made and services rendered by Cakraraya to the temple, such as a1000 kalanju for a gold dish, consecration of the image of Garudalvar, a1000 kalanju of gold for the pedestal of the Goddess, a similar sum for agold lamp-stand, a golden pot worth a 1,000 kalanju of gold, a pearlgarment, a gold platter (vattil) and pedestal from again a 1,000 kalanju ofgold.38 (50 of 1937-38) The cyclic years quoted in this record, i.e. fromKrodhi to Saumya, when the gifts were made severally, have to be equatedwith the period 1424-1429.

The Koil-Olugu and the Laksmikavyam speak of Uttamanambi orUttamaraya and Cakraraya, who did much to enrich the Srirangam templewith the help of the Vijayanagar kings. Valivadimai-nilaiyitta (meaning ‘hewho established his title as the hereditary servant of God’, a rendering in

who established his title as the hereditary servant of God’, a rendering in

Tamil of the Sanskrit Vamsa-krama mula-bhritya, which occurs in theLaksmikavya) Uttamanambi is identifical with Srirangacarya Uttamanambi ofthe Vamsaprabhavam, the son of Periya Krisnarayar Uttamanambi.39 (No.81in the list.) His other titles mentioned in the Koil-Olugu are Meinilaiyitta(i.e. ‘he who established the truth, probably this has reference to his partin the reorganisation of the temple with the help of Rayas) and Ellaikkarai-nilaiyitt (i.e. ‘he who established the boundary’ - between Srirangam andJambukesvaram). According to the Laksmikavyam Uttamaraya (Uttamanambi)possessed royal insignia and managed the affairs of the temple. This, it wasseen, is attested by inscriptions. From the Kavya it is also known that hehad two brothers Cakraraya and Timmaraya, the latter of whom renouncedthe wordly life and became an ascetic. Tirumaladhisa, the author of theKavya, was the grandson of Uttamaraya.40 (EI XVIII, p.139.) Both theVamsaprabhavam and the Koil-Olugu say that this famous member of thefamily of the Uttamanambis was the warden of the Srirangam temple for 44years, between the cyclic years Sarvajit and Pramoduta, i.e., from 1407 to1450. The inscriptions mentioning this Uttamanambi and his brotherCakraraya range between these two dates. The Olugu says that in 1421Ellaikkarai-nilaiyitta Uttamanambi went to Vijayanagar, please Devaraya II(Pratapadeva Maharaya, who witnessed the ‘elephant-hunt’, gajavettai) byplaying with him and winning games of caturanga and obtained from himvarious presents for himself, and the name of Raya, a separate mutt andseal and various privileges in the temple for his brother Cakraraya. “Underthe orders of the Raya the two mutts were made distinct from each other…. Reaching Srirangam he inspected the villages attached to the temple.Thus did he swell the glory of Srirangam a hundred fold. IN collaborationwith the Jiyars, the Srivaisnavas, the ekangis and the Acaryapurusas hemaintained the established order of things without any slip and enjoyed thetitle of ‘Raya and the appropriate birudas. Placing himself, at the head ofthe group of the ‘Tiruppatiyar’ - the Koavanavar - he received the presentsdue to him, while he obtained for his brother, the right of receiving thepresents due to the Senapati Durantara from the Raya. This state ofprosperity continued for both of them without diminution, in the tworespective mutts”. He is also said to have obtained a 100 villages from manypersons for the temple.41 (KO. pp.146-47 and p.155.) The Oluguattributes to Cakraraya most of the repairs of damages caused to variousparts of the temple as a consequence of the Muslim raids and occupation,like the shrines of Nammalvar and Srivaraha Nainar, and the Aryabhattalgateway.42 (Ibid., pp.152-53 and 157-58.) The Olugu as well as theUttamanambi Vamsaprabhavam quote an inscription and say that in the year

Manmatha (1415) he had the ‘Sannidhi Garudan’ cast and installed in theAlagiyamanavalan tirumantapa. Valiyadimai-nilaiyitta Uttamanambi too iscredited with some repairs of damages to the temple caused by the Muslimoccupation.43 (Ibid., pp.156-57.)

Officers and petty chiefs: Benefactors of the temple

An inscription in the Srirangam temple dated 1433 registers a gift ofthe villages, Kodiyalam and Sirudavur, to Uttamanambi by (Anna) Chaudapa,son of Adityadeva of the Vasista gotra, for conducting a car festival in thetemple on the day of Uttiradam, the natal star of the donor’s father. Anelephant was also presented to the temple for service during the samefestival.44 (7 of 1938-39; pt.II, para 45.) An incomplete record mentionsAnnadata Dannayaka Udaiyar of the Harita gotra as the donor of land inUruttava-Bemmanahalli alias Srirangarajapuram in Mukkunra-nadu, a sub-division of Perungondai-rajya for a service called after the donor.45 (7 of1938-39; pt.II, para 45.) Another inscription refers to a certainAnnappamantri, whose son, Sripati, is said to have constructed a window(dvara) to the pinnacle (valabhi) of the vimana of the temple.46 (57 of1938-39; pt.II, para 45.) Though Annadata Udaiyar and Annappa-amantricannot be identified they may provisionally be assigned to the period roundabout Devaraja II.

The Koil-Olugu refers to Anna Chaudapa as Anna Andappa Udaiyar andsays, evidently with reference to the inscription mentioned above, that heconducted the dvajarohana of the car festival on the day of the Uttirattadi,the natal star of Adityadeva, in the month of Purattasi of Paridapi (1433),in the Trivikraman enclosure and, for its expenses endowed the village ofKodiyalam.47 (KO.p.154, The inscription mentions the next year Pramadi.)Eleven years later, in Rutrotkari 1444 Annappa Udaiyar is said to haveconducted the Kedakkuli-tirunal (festival of sporting in water) of theVasantotsava and endowed the village of Mallidevan-puttur for its expenses.In the same year (Rutrotkari) he is also said to have constructed the wall ofAdayavalaindan enclosure (i.e. the street surrounding the temple) and thebase of the gateway and gopura.48 (Ibid., pp.154-55, 156; The Saka dateviz., 1385, seems to be wrong.) This Annappa Udaiyar or Anna ChaundappaUdaiyar may be identified with the person of the same name mentioned in anundated record at Jambukesvaram and assigned to 1436 by an inscription atMummudisolamangalam (Lalgudi Taluk, Thiruchirapalli district.)49 (134 of1936-37, 143 of 1938-39.)

In S.1354, Paridapi, (A.D.1432) a certain Dennayakkar, with the

In S.1354, Paridapi, (A.D.1432) a certain Dennayakkar, with the

title Daksinasamudradipati is said to have provided for the building of ashrine for Hanumantadeva and the installation of His image therein, byendowing to the temple the village of Kilpattu-puttur.50 (KO. 153.) Thereference is obviously to Lakkanna Dandanayakka, the governor of Maduraiunder Devaraya II. When this shrine was made over to the Randadaiyar(probably Koil Kandadai Annan) the latter’s disciple, Narnsingadasan,constructed a mukhamantapa for that shrine and consecrated an image ofTiruppan Alvar therein.51 (Ibid.)

High-handedness of the Revenue collecting officers

Provincial government, in the Vijayanagar empire, was well organised,and the different local divisions were left in charge of governors, who, itwould appear, enjoyed considerable freedom. In a few instances it is knownthat the tax collecting officers, who were appointed by the emperor toassist the governors, oppressed the people and their religious institutions.For example an inscription of Devaraja II from Jambukesvaram, dated inthe cyclic year Plavanga (1427) states that the Mahesvaras of the Saivatemple and one Marudavana Sivan brought to the notice of the Raya theexcessive demands made by the adhikaris and senai-bovas in the shape ofjodi and kanikkai for choutries and other levies, over and above thevibhutikanikkai due to the king, in the sarvamanya lands belonging to theSaiva and Vaisnava temples in the Tiruccirapalli, Solamandalam andValudilampattu rajyas, and that as a result of this oppression the cultivatorsof the devadana lands threw up their holdings and migrated elsewhere thusjeopardising the conduct of worship in the temple.52 (113 of 1936-37;pt.II, para 56.) Three persons connected with the Srirangam templesacrificed their lives by casting themselves down from a gopura in 1489 as aprotest against the excessive taxation and persecution of the temple. Wehear of similar examples of oppression in later years too. ON a petition ofthe people complaining against these new levies, in this case, the Raya sentan order to his officer to the effect that no tax other than vibhutikanikkaidue to the king (like angasalaigal, vetti, vekali kaduvetta and amanji) was dueto be imposed on the devadana lands, and that the income from these landsafter the payment of the legitimate tax was to be enjoyed by therespective temples, whose Mahesvaras and sthanikas were to be left freewith the conduct of worship, the performance of services and thecelebration of festivals. To enforce this order two agents (taravukkarar),Bukka and Timma, were sent by the king to the south. The exacting officerfiguring in this inscription is Sirupparasar, who is mentioned elsewhere as thegovernor of Padaivittu-rajya. He is mentioned in an epigraph in the

Srirangam temple dated 1444 as the father of Vitthanan, who is said tohave built the big car pavilion (ter mantapam) of the Srirangam temple.53(96 of 1936-37.)

THE SETTLEMENT OF A BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN SRIRANGAMAND JAMBUKESVARAM

The allied local chronicles, viz., the Koil-Olugu, the Uttamanambi-vamsaprabhavam, and the Sriranganarayana Jiyar Guruparamparai makeprominent mention of a boundary dispute between the Srirangam andJambukesvaram temples and how it was resolved by umpires fromVijayanagara. It was the immemorial custom for the Ranganatha image to betaken, on the eighth day of the Panguni-uttiram festival, from a point onthe northern bank of the Kaveri to a mantapa in the garden ofTirumangaimannan on the southern bank of the Coleroon along an imaginaryboundary line running from the south to the north between the adjacentVaisnava and Saiva temples. This ceremony of the ‘eighth day’ (ettamtirunal) is described in the Laksmi kavyam. From the Koil-Olugu it is knownthat the God used to be taken, in the course of this procession along theboundary line, into Tiruvanaikkaval or Jambukesvaram and His feet washed inthe tank there (Jambutirtham). After this short break the procession tothe garden of Tirumangaimannan was resumed. It would appear that theSaivas of Jambukesvaram resented this intrusion; and this state of hostilityresulted ultimately in an armed attack on the one side and a terribleretaliation on the other. The Saivas, who seem to have had the worse ofthe conflict, immediately proceeded to Vijayanagar to plead their case. FromSrirangam Uttamanambi, the Jiyar and a few others went to Vijayanagar torepresent the Vaisnavas. The Raya heard the complaints on either side andsent along with Uttamanambi to Srirangam “his guru Vyasa Udayar, GopalaUdayar and Raghu Udayar” as arbitrators.54 (KO p.140.) Under theirsupervision Uttamanambi “ran” (along) the boundary “starting from the four-pillared mantapa with the two tiruvali (cakra) stones on the bank of thesouthern kaveri”, and boundary stones were fixed in his tract.55 (Ibid.,p.141 for details) The new boundary was laid north-south to the west ofthe Jambutirtham, which was thus declared to be outside the area ofSrirangam. The Saivites were pacified. “From that time”, says the Olugu.“the Perumal is taken to the boundary on the eighth day not to the east(i.e., Jambukesvaram)”. The chronicle of the Srirangam temple obviouslytries to give credit to the Uttamanambi for having given up the claim to theJambutirtham voluntarily with a view to assuage the feelings of the Saivas.It is more likely that the decisions was forced upon him by the mediating

matadiparis.

The Koil-Olugu assigns the dispute to S.1297 Nala, or A.D.1376 andsays that the Uttamanambi, who was instrumental in settling the dispute wasPeriya Krisnaraya Uttamanambi. Between him and Valiyadimai NilaiyittaUttamanambi the Olugu makes no difference,56 (Ibid. p.142.) Where as theUttamanambi Vamsaprabhavam makes the latter the son of the former.According to both the accounts Valiyadimai Nilaiyitta or Ellaikkarai NilaiyittaUttamanambi was active on behalf of the temple from 1405 to 1450. Eventhe Olugu gives certain details which prove beyond doubt that thisUttamanambi and Periya Krisnaraya were different, e.g., it assigns to thelatter the period between Rutrotkari and Isvara (i.e.1383-97) and to theformer the period Sarvajit to Pramoduta (i.e.1407-50).57 (Ibid. pp.150and 155.) In a different context it says that a boundary wall betweenSrirangam and Kilaiyur (Jambukesvaram) was erected by Uttamanambi inS.1355 or A.D.1433.58 (Ibid. p.154.) This must be Ellaikkarai-nilaiyittaUttamanambi, whose very name indicates that he was the one whoestablished the boundary. Now according to the Olugu, a wall was built in1433 while sometime earlier boundary stones were fixed. The occasion wasprovided by a bull, which is said to have escaped from Jambukesvaram and“caused considerable damage to the gardens” in Velittirumuttam (open yard)in Srirangam. “Unable to bear this the ekangis handled it severely as aresult of which considerable enmity arose between the people of Kilaiyur andthose of this shrine. In S.1355, Paridapi, Uttamanambi pacified bothparties and built the boundary wall.”59 (According to a Madhwa traditionVyasaraya (1478-1539), the minister and guru of Krishnadeva Raya (1509-30), arbitrated in the boundary dispute and established a common boundaryline. This goes against the evidence furnished by the local chronicles.)

THE RELIGIOUS LUMINARIES OF THE DAY:MANAVALA MAHAMUNI AND THE ASTADIGGAJAS

Vedantadesika lived, taught and wrote in the turbulent and anxiousdays of the Muslim invasions; he had to flee for his life and suffer an exiletorn away from the abode of his heart, but happily he was able to witness,in his last days, the liberation of the Srirangam temple. His death almostcoincided with the birth of Manavala Mahamuni, who had all the blessings ofpeace for the propagation of his creed. In the years succeeding therestoration of the temple again, we witness the same process of potentialconflict between the Bhasya and the prabanda schools working itself out,without the effort of the parties and perhaps even without their knowledge.

Both Vedantadesika and Manavala Mahamuni have to be exempted from thestigma of partisanship and secretarianism though, in course of time, theycame to be looked upon as the heads of the two rival creeds of Vaisnavism.It is worthy of note that Manavala Mahamuni quotes freely from the worksof Vedantadesika.

Manavala Mahamuni was born in October, 1370 (in the month ofAippasi of the cyclic year Sadarana, Kali 4461) in Alvar Tirunagari. Hisfather was called Tadarannaraiyar and his mother Annardevigal. As astudent of Tiruvaimolippillai he acquired a remarkable mastery over thesubject of the Divyaprabandas. He lost his father after his marriage anderelong migrated to Srirangam, visiting the holy shrines of Srivilliputtur,Tirumalirumsolai, etc., that lay on his route. In the course of his stay inTirunagari he wrote the Yatiraja-vimsati in praise of Ramanuja. The Koil-Olugu says that in S.1347 or A.D.1425 Manavala Mahamuni had establishedhimself in Srirangam as Periya Jiyar, favoured with the grace of thePerumal. The Annan Tirumaligai Olugu gives the date S.1327 (A.D.1405) forhis visit to Srirangam. It is said that Uttamanambi, who erred in the properexecution of his administrative duties connected with the temple, wascorrected by Manavala Mahamuni. Uttamanambi took the chastisement ofPeriya Jiyar in good spirits and became the fervetn disciple of the Jiyar.With a view to attain proficiency in the Sribhasya Manavala Mahamuni leftSrirangam for Kanci, where he took lessons from Kidambi Nayanar. Thusequipping himself with both the Sanskrit and Tamil pravacanas he returned toSrirangam and settled down in the Pallavarayan mutt. He set himself to thetask of tireless oral exposition of the Divyaprabandas and writing downcommentaries on the works of Pillai Lokacarya. Under his supervision thelectures of Vadakkuttiruvidi Pillai on the Tiruvaimoli, which had beengathered into the famous ‘Idu 36,000’, were edited and published to theoutside world. To this commentary he added a gloss called thePramanattirattu. His other chief writings were a commentary on the Gita byname Tatparyadipam and a compendium of the teachings of the severalAcaryas of the past, called Upadesaratnamalai. Eight chief disciples, knownas the Astadiggajas adorned the mutt of Manavala Mahamuni; they wereVanamamalai Jiyar, Emberumanar Jiyar, Bhattarpiran Jiyar, Koil KandadaiAnnan Erumbi Appa, Appillai Appillar and Prativadi Bhayankaram Annan. Ofthese Koil Kandadai Annan was a lineal descendant of Mudaliyandan, themanager of the Srirangam temple in the time of Ramanuja, 60 (The AnnanTirumaligai Olugu and the Koil-Olugu provide a genealogy of the Kandadais.).

Mudaliyandan

Mudaliyandan

(nephew and disciple of Ramanuja)

Kandadai Andan

Kandadai Tolappa

Periya Varadacaryar1 Chinna Varadacaryar Iyan Ramanujacarya

(Periya Ayi) (Cinnayi) (Vaduladesika)

Siddannar alias Deivangal Perumal Tolappar

Srirangaraja Nathan

Vaduladesika2

Narasimhadesika alias

Periya Koil Kandadai Anna.3

1.who installed Karunarayana Jiyar in the gadi of Sriranganarayana Jiyar.

2. who managed the temple on the eve of the Muslim invasion of 1323.After the invasion the Kandadais are said to have left Srirangam. Theyreturned during the administration of Elaikkarai-nilaiyitta Uttamanambi.

3. Perhaps an elder contemporary and disciple of Manavala Mahamuni.

And Prativadi Bhayankaram Anna was a Sanskrit scholar of Conjivaram,learned in the Bhasya. The demise of Mahamuni is placed in S.1367 orA.D.1445.

On the Vadakalai side the most important of the successors ofVedantadesika were Varadacarya alias Nainaracaryar, his own son, andBrahmatantra-svatantra Jiyar, one of his well-known sisyas. It is said thatPrativadi Bhayankaram Anann, who was originally a disciple of Nainaracaryar,who was popularising the teachings of Vedantadesika in Srirangam, came intoconflict with Manavala Mahamuni, but was reconciled to him later. Withthese personages the accounts in the Guruparampara is come to a close, andfrom this period onwards we have to reckon the rise of the mathas of therival schools in which their sectarianism became more and more encrusted.

MALLIKARJUNA (1446-1465) AND TIRUMALAINATHA UTTAMANAMBI

There are a few inscriptions of Mallikarjuna in the Srirangam temple.One dated 1447 records an endowment made for offerings to God

One dated 1447 records an endowment made for offerings to God

Ranganatha in the names of 7 persons including Madanna Dannayaka (governorof Muluvayirajya), Sirupparasar (governor of Padaivittu-rajya), HiriyaSirupparasa, Nagayamma and Ammakkamma.61 (33 of 1938-39; pt.II, para46.) Another inscription dated in the next year 1448, registers gift of landfor a garden called Etirajan-tottam for rearing flowers, coconut trees etc.,for the use of the temple by Karanika Ponnambalanatha, son of KaranikaBharati Vitthanna of the Srivatsa gotra and left in charge of Uttamanambi.The next record dated 1456 registers gift of land by purchase by KorpuraMalavaraya for rearing a garden for supply of vegetables and flowers to theGod. While describing the boundaries of the gift land Nanmugan-gopuram,Akalankan tirumadil (wall) and Tirumangai Alvar tirumadil are mentioned.62(92 of 1938-39.) A copper plate grant from Srirangam of Mallikarjunadated S.1384 or A.1462 (Citrabhanu), in which he is called ImmadiDevaraya and Immadi Praudhabhupati, registers a gift of the villageUttamaceri-kiliyur, near Srirangam belonging to the Ciricitampalli-rajya, tothe God Sriranganatha. From the income of the village arrangements were tobe made for the daily offering of six complete dishes of food for the God,the maintenance of a water-shed perpetually in front of the temple, and afeeding of 60 Vaisnavas daily in the Ramanujakutam (choultry) as well asthree grand feedings, one in the month of phalguna and the other two inDhanus.63 (C.P.No.28 of 1905-6; EI XVI, p.345.)

The Koil-Olugu says that Tirumalainatha Uttamanambi, the author ofthe Laksmi Kavyam and a grandson of Valiyadimainilaiyitta Uttamanambi,proceeded to Vijayanagar and stayed in the court of the Raya from S.1366,Raktaksi (A.D.1444) to the following Prajotpati (A.D.1451). During thisperiod, says the Olugu, he collected large endowments in cash and alsoreceived 22 villages as benefactions to the temple from Praudhadeva Raya,Mallikarjuna Raya and others. In the latter year he returned to Srirangamand made certain additions and effected a few repairs to the temple. Heconstructed the 100 pillared mantapa to the east of the Periyatirumantapaand performed therein the ceremony of the Sahasrakalasabhiseka for theGod.64 (KO.p.159.) In S.1383 (A.D.1461) Mallikarjuna Raya removed thebronze flag-staff in the Aniyarangam courtyard, and replaced it by a copperone, which was covered with 102 gold plates containing the figures of theelephant, the lion etc., and upon which he erected a gold plated image ofGaruda. The quantity of Gold expended on this occasion is said to be 1,600palams.65 (Ibis., p.162.)

THE PERIOD OF THE DECLINE OF THE FIRST DYNASTY:

VIRUPAKSA (1465-85): THE BROTHERS OF TIRUMALAINATHAUTTAMANAMBI

Virupaksa (1465-85) was the successor of Mallikarjuna and the lastruler of the First Dynasty. In the days of these two rulers power at thecentre had considerably weakend and this opportunity was taken goodadvantage of by external powers like the Gajapatis of Orissa and theBahmani Sultans. The Eastern Ganga king Kapilesvara Gajapati (1435-70)declared a relentless war on the empire of Vijayanagar and before 1455 heover-ran large slices of the empire, viz., Rajahmundry, Kondavidu,Telangana, Udayagiri and parts of the Tamil country. The southern campaignis placed in 1463. Candragiri, Kanci; Paidavidu, Tiruvarur and Tiruccirapalliwere overrun and a son of Kumara Hamvira, by name Kumara KapilesvaraMahapatra was entrusted with the government of the conquered territoriesof the south. An inscription on the inner wall of the Aryabhattal gateway inthe Srirangam temple dated 1464 specifically mentions this prince. Itrecords the gift of a 1,000 cows by Daksina Kapilesvara Hambira-kumaraMahapatra for supply of ghee for lamp and milk to God Srirangaraja.66 (140of 1938-39 Inscriptions found in several places in South India, particularlySouth Arcot district mention Oddian Galabai; Orissan invasion) sec.ARE,1936-37, pt.II, para 59.) Another inscription in the temple dated 1471refers to a garden called Mahapatran-toppu, evidently reminiscent of thesojourn of this Hambira at Srirangam. It registers gift of land, afterpurchase, by Pallikonda Perumal Karpura Malavarayar alias Alagiyamanavala-dasar for providing flower garlands and coconuts to the temple and a furthergift of four housesites, by purchase, for the supply musti-madukaram(alms). Two of the housesites were purchased from Uttamanambi. Among theboundaries of the land is mentioned a garden called Mahapatran-toppu.67(62 of 1938-39)

It is well known that the Orissan danger to empire of Vijayanagar waswarded off by Saluva Narasimha, the governor of Candragiri. His Victoriesare described in detail by the Saluvabhyudayam of Rajanatha Dindima. TheKalinga army was defeated and Udayagiri captured. Then he turned southand passed though the shrines of Cidambaram, Kumbakonam Srirangam andJambukesvaram. His march was continued upto Ramesvaram and all the kingsin his track paid him homage. At Srirangam he is said to have made ashortstay and inquired into the administration of the endowments made by hisancestors.

The growing power of the Saluvas is reflected by an incident mentioned

in the Koil-Olugu of a conflict between Saluva Tirumalairaja and a revenuecollecting agent of the Raya (Mallikarjuna), by name Kamparaja. ThisTirumalairaja was a cousin of Saluva Narasimha,68 (Saluva Narasimha was ason of Gunda III while Saluva Tirumalairaja was a son of Gopa and bothwere great Grandsons of Saluva Mangu.) and governor of the Thiruchirapalliregion. The Olugu says, “when Kulitandal (i.e., land-revenue collector)Kamparaja came to Thiruchirapalli as the agent of the Raya, bearing theRayamudra, Tirumalairaja said to him, ‘leave these territories to myjurisdiction’, upon which enmity arose between these two.’69 (KO.p.159.) Asa result of this conflict, “all the inhabitants including the members of thesabha and the nadu of the northern and southern banks of the Kaverideserted, in the month of Purattasi of the year Pramadi, S.1381(September 1459), their villages and lived in the thousand pillared mantapaand other places for 12 years”. Ultimately, however, in S.1393, Kara(1471), the revenue collection in the region of Trichinopoly (Thiruchirapallisirmai-tandal sirmai) passed definitely under the jurisdiction of Tirumalairajaand peace was established, when the cultivators returned to their respectivevillages. There are two inscriptions of this Saluva Tirumalairaja alias GopaTimma, the patron of the poets Irattaiyar and Kalamegham, in the templesof Srirangam and Jambukesvaram,70 (59 of 1892; SII IV 506; 67 of1903.) former dated in 1463 and the latter in the cyclic year Srimukha,i.e., 1453. The inscription in Srirangam registers that the incomes from thevarious temple lands in the Trichinopoly and other regions71 (According tothis inscription the temple lands were situated in Tiruccirapalli-usavadi,Milainadu, Melamuri, Kilamuri, Amurnadu; Tenkarai Rajagambhira valanadu,Adiyamangalapparru, Vilavaradavilanadu; Vaialanadu, Tanjavur-sirmai,Manarpidinadu, Nittavinodavalanadu, Sriparanrakanadu, VittaparruVenbanadu, Konadu, Tiruvarur Usauadi, Alagudiparru Jayangendasolavalanadu,Idaiyarrunadu and other Sirmais.) were to be enjoyed and the landsthemselves managed, without any external interference, by the Sribhandaraof the temple. It also records the gift of certain jewels to the god ofSrirangam. The Koil-Olugu says that in the year Kara (A.D.1471) SaluvaTirumalairaja reconstructed the northern gopura and gateway in the Alinadanenclosure and also created a passage through the Alinadan wall (tattarai ortavuttarai vasal) leading into the veliyalagiyan (manalveli) and thence to the1,000 pillared mantapa. From this date, it is said, that the procession ofthe god from the sanctum to the 1,000 pillared mantapa on the occasion ofthe Tiruvaimoli-tirunal passed through the new gateway. This benefactor isalso said to have erected a pavilion of sandalwood, in the Alagiyamanavalantirumantapa, upon its dais a capra (canopied platform for deity) and a couch

made of ivory for divine enjoyment. This is now called the sandanamantapam.72 (KO.p.164.) Regarding Kamparaja, the enemy of Tirumalairaja,the Olugu says that he recast the images of Ganga and Yamuna, thedvarapalikas of the deity Gopurangal Nayakan, that had been destroyedduring the Muslim occupation.73 (Ibid., p.163.)

After Saluva Tirumalairaja established his own right against the agentof the Raya in 1471 Tirumalainatha Uttamanambi is said to havereconstructed the shrine of Laksminarayana Perumal on the banks of thePunaga tirtam and to have offered a capra of ivory for the Perumal. On thenight of the third day of a certain Panguni festival subsequent to that date,the Perumal, who was being taken in procession on the horse vehicle, it issaid, was sheltered from rain in the threshold of the house of Uttamanambi,who worshipped the god along with his people and bequeathed all his propertyto the temple. From that year he provided for the Perumal being taken in apalanquin on the third day of the Panguni festival.74 (Ibid., pp.160-161.)

In the last years of the first of Sangama dynasty of Vijayanagar theSrirangam temple was managed by the two brothers of TirumalainathaUttamanambi, viz., Krisnaraya Uttamanambi and Kudalsaravala Nainar. Theformer is said to have received in Plavanga, 1487, twenty villages from acertain Eramanji Timmappa Nayaka and others as endowments to the temple.He firmly reconstructed a paddy granary of the temple which had become oldand dilapidated. In Virodhakrit, 1491, Kudalsaravala Nainar purchased a fewvillages for the temple and reconstructed the Rajamahendran gateway thathad suffered during the Muslim occupation. ‘Kudalsaravala Nainar’ is acorruption of ‘Kudalcakravala Nainar Uttamanambi Pillai’, who figures withthe significant title Ilandakalamedutta, i.e., ‘he who revived the past’, in aninscription in Srirangam.75 (Ibid., pp.161-162; 81 of 1936-37; pt.II, para49; EI. XXIV, pp.90 ff.) In his time Srinivasa alias Sriranga GarudavahanaBhatta’ the son of alagiyamanavala Mangaladaraya, of the Bhattalkottu, whohas been identified with the author of the Divyasuricaritam, is said to havereconstructed the Arogyasala, which had suffered damage as a result of thevanam (Tulukka-vanam, i.e., Muslim raid or occupation) and installed in it animage of Dhanvantri or the Divine Physician.76 (KO.pp.161-163.)

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORY

Chapter 8THE PERIOD OF THE SECOND AND THIRD DYNASTIES OF

VIJAYANAGAR

The Collapse of the code of Udayavar

The effect of state-control upon the temple administration

The century and a half of rule of the members of the first (Sangama)dynasty (1350-1490) saw the restoration of the Srirangam temple fromMuslim occupation as also the slow and gradual process of reorganisationunder the aegis of a family of temple managers called the Uttamanambis,who proved to be the men of the moment. By their tireless activities anumber of villages were added on to the Sribhandara and the temple becamericher and richer. With the help of the numerous royal and privatebenefactors many of the damages that parts of the temple and suffered asa result of the Muslim raids and occupation for nearly half a century (1311and 1323-1371) were repaired in course of time. The Uttamanambi-vamsaprabhavam records that the number of villages owned by the temple atthis period was 292. Notwithstanding the reconsecration of the godAlagiyamanavalan and the restoration of worship in the temple by the earlyVijayanagar chieftains in 1371 the chronicler in the Koil-Olugu feels sorrythat the Hindu resurrectionists did not care to revive and maintain the codeof regulations established by Udayavar, but carried on the administration ofthe temple under the immediate supervision of their own officers and agents,who disregarded the hereditary chiefs of the temple, like the decendants ofMudaliyandan, the nominee of Udayavar, and encouraged their own favouritesand created some new offices. The local governors of the Vijayanagarempire, it is said, constantly interfered in the affairs of the temple as aresult of which many headships arose leading to a considerable diversificationof the temple groups and their services. Says the Olugu, “At the time whenthe Cera, Cola and Pandyan kingdoms were ruled over by a single king, andlater on, when three different kings ruled over the three kingdoms, right upto the year S.1249, Aksya, kings refrained from ruling over the lands thathad been granted to temples and Brahmanas, which were under the controlof the Brahmanas themselves. The kings interfered only to investigate intomisdeeds and punish wrongdoers. Afterwards, when the Muhammadansinvaded the country and laid waste the endowments to temples and

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a y

Brahmanas, the Perumal, left Srirangam for various other shrines where Heresided temporarily. On the 17th of Vaikasi in the year Paridapi S.1293,the Perumal returned to Srirangam. After this date all these kingdomspassed under the control of the Raya, the Narpati. The Raya and thevarious Durgadipatis gave many pieces of land back so the temple as gifts.They appointed their own men as accountants and superintendents of thetemple as if it were an item of royal administration from the place.

Therefore the code of Udayavar collapsed. From the time ofUdayavar upto the Muhammadan occupation the honours due to the Kovanavarwere done without any default and in an unbroken lineage until the days ofRangaraja Nayan in the line of Mudaliyandan. After the Muhammadanoccupation, when Srirangaraya of Uttamarkoil succeeded to the gaddi ofSriranganarayana Jiyar, the first place in receiving tirtam etc., on thewestern steps (leading to the sanctum) was given to the Jiyar for a fewdays and, for a few days to Vaduladesikar in disregard of the honour due tothe mace (Senapati durantara, a Kovanavar. On certain other days tirtamwas offered to the Jiyar in the second place. On certain days Bhattar wasoffered tirtam in the second place and the Jiyar in the third place. Aftersometime all the three were offered tirtam simultaneously. The arulappaduin the name of Vaduladesikar was stopped … Thus the adina of theKovanavar collapsed … from the days of the Raya the following offices aroseas a result of the constant interference of the Durgadipatis, and under theseal of the Raya: a korattuparpatyakara (superintendent of the innerservices), a Sriranganarayana Jiyar as the head of the mutt, aUttamanambi, in course of time, who became the Ilamkelvi (AssistantSuperintendent), a cakraraya, created again under the Rayamudra, andKandadai Ramanuja exercising authority under the Desantri mudra. Thus thesingle authority of the Kovanavar split itself into many offices. So also theten groups of Brahmana parijanas in the temple became diversified into manydivisions. The (rights of) services of certain groups were detached, in variousways, from those groups and lodged in the Sribhandara. The groups of Sudraservants too suffered the same fate. Thus the kottu-maryadai (groups andtheir services) of Udayavar came to ruins. The order of things establishedby him according to the sastric injunctions enunciated by the Perumal Himselfin the Pancaratra collapsed, Independently and in opposition to the rulesarose, in quite a novel manner, various honours due to Acaryapurusas, allthese groups of temple servants, their division into stanan samayam, etc.,and the presents due to their services.”1 (KO. pp.171-173.)

Kandadai Ramanujadasa

The Koil-Olugu says that Vira Narasimha, the first king of the secondor Saluva dynasty, had an elder brother by name Ramaraja, who was welllearned in the sastras and who became a saint. He was an ardent devotee ofAnjaneya. In the course of his pilgrimage he went to Ayoddhi, where heobtained Srirama’s gold coins (1/2 pagodas) and the sparsavedi (a mythicalweapon that destroys at touch). He returned to the capital, offered aRama’s coin to his brother and obtained from him a royal order to the effectthat he should be allowed to exercise full control over all the Vaisnavashrines situated in the empire. With this authority he first went to TirupatiTirumalai and brought the shrines of Tirumalai Perumal under his control.After visiting other shrines he came and settled in Srirangam in S.1411 orA.D.1489. He became a fervent disciple of Kandadai Annan under thedasyanama Kandadai Ramanujadasa. He is credited with the reorganisation ofthe temple affairs and repairs and reconstruction of parts of the temple.2(Ibid., pp.164.171.) More than 20 inscriptions in the Tirumalai Tirupatitemples, ranging between the dates 1465 and 1495 refers to KandadaiRamanuja Aiyangar.3 (Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanam Inscriptions, vols.IIand III.) In these he is referred to as the manager of the gold treasury(porbhandaram) of the temple of Venkateswara and the Ramanujakutams(choultries) in Tirumalai and Tirupati. He was venerated by the Raya, whoperhaps regarded him as his guru. From inscriptions and literature it isknown that Saluva Narasimha’s elder brother was called Timmaraja but hewas not a saint and is not known as Kandadai Ramanujadas. The suffixAiyangar occurring in inscriptions is perhaps an honorific.

A few inscriptions in Srirangam refer to Kandadai Ramanuja Aiyangarhis benefactions, and his disciple Kandadai Madhava Aiyangar. An earlyinscription dated in 1483 refers to a service founded in his name. Itregisters a gift of land after purchase by Mahamandalesvara Timmayar, sonof Kamparasar Mallayar, for providing offerings to the god Tiruvarangacelvarsubsequent to the service called Ayodhya Ramanuja avasaram.4 (22 of1938-39. Kamparasar, here, recalls Kamparaja.) Another inscription dated1489 registers a gift of two villages on the bank of the Palar (in Padaividusavadi in Tondaimandalam) by Kandadai Ayodhya Ramanuja Aiyangar, asattada-parama ekangi of Tiruvarangam Tirupati, who got them from theirbrahmana owners, for offerings to the god during the Ramanuja-avasaramand to feed with the offerings Srivaisnava Brahmanas in theRamanujayyangar Ramanujakutam situated to the west of the Pallavarayanmutt in the eastern part of the southern row of the Vikrama-solan tiruvidi.5(13 of 1938-39.) Two inscriptions dated in 1500 and 1515 mention KandadaiRamanuja Aiyangar as the dharmakarta (trustee) of the Ramanujakutam at

Tiruvarangam-Tirupati and his disciple Kandadai Madhava Aiyangar.6 (92 and93 of 1936-37.) The latter is said to have constructed therein Vitthalesvarand Madurakavi Alvar and arranged for their worship. A kitchen was alsoprovided for the shrine. In the subsequent Year (A.D.1515) two velis ofland belonging to the temple were allotted for the worship of these images.The donor is also said to have constructed a mantapa and formed a garden,evidently for this shrine. An inscription dated 1514 registers gift of moneyto Kandadai Madhava Aiyangar, the disciple of Kandadai Ramanuja Aiyangar,for providing offerings, worship, etc., to the god Krisnaraya during theSrijayanti festival and to the goddess Sriranga Nacciyar during theMahanavami festival.7 (41 of 1938-39.) Another inscription dated 1520registers a similar gift of money to the same person for providing offerings,firstly, to Ranganatha on the second day of the Brahmotsava, while the godhalted in the mantapa constructed by him in his garden and, secondly, toKrisnadeva Maharaya while the god (Krisna) halted in the garden adjoiningthe pradhani Timmarasar toppu during the fifth day of the Masi festival.8(42 of 1938-39) The last three inscriptions mentioned here belong to thereign of Krisnadevaraya (1509-30) and it is interesting to note that godKrisna is called Krisnaraya and Krisnadeva Maharaya.

The Koil-Olugu says that Kandadai Ramanuja, as theSenapatidurantara or Korattu-parpatyakkara, daily assigned duties as waslaid down by Udayavar to the ekangis connected with the variousdepartments of the temple. As a result Uttamanambi came to occupy asubordinate position in the temple as is clear from the statement in theOlugu that he received tirtam and prasadam after Kandadai Ramanuja. Thechronicle narrates a number of services rendered by this benefactor to thetemple. It is said that in Sarvajit (1527), there was a breach, consequenton floods in the Kaveri, which established a link between this river and theColeroon to the west of the boundary wall near Anaikkaval in the east. Whenthe floods abated the channel between the two shrines (Srirangam andAnaikkaval) had left a long and deep trench, which Kandadai Ramanuja filledup with earth and thus restored communication between them. Thereconstruction of the Akalangan wall and its eastern gopura, the northernand southern gopuras of the wall of Virasundarabrahmarayar (the 6th wall)and the shrine of Vitthalesvara, a fresh pavement of the 1000 pillaredmantapa, the erection of the unjal (swing) mantapa to the south-east of theAniyarangan courtyard and the repairs of the granaries are credited to him.He had many vessels and jewels made for the use of the god and gave a goldcoating to the sacred vimana and the divine vehicles.

The Oppression of Koneriraja:

The de facto successor of Saluva Narasimha was his redoubtablegeneral Narasa Nayaka. While the former concentrated his attention onputting down the aggressive activities of the Bahmini Sultan and the Gajapatiof Orissa the latter turned against the refractory chieftains and governorsof the South. One such was Konetiraja or Koneriraja, who succeeded SaluvaTirumalairaja as the governor of the Thiruchirapalli region. From hisinscriptions it is known that he was governor between the years 1488 and1492. That he was practically independent could be inferred from thevarious titles he assumed viz., Mahamandalesvara, Maharaja, RayaBhasavasankara, (which incidentally reveals his Saivite leanings),Rajarajaraganda, Kancipuravaradhisvara, etc.9 (259 of 1911; 74 of 1913;396 of 1918; 49, 51 and 54 of 1920.) Taking advantage of the failure ofthe de jure sovereignty, i.e., the sons of Saluva Narasimha, he had growninsubordinate. The Acyutarayabhyudym referes to Konetiraja as “the herounrivalled in the world, who caused confusion to the army of the enemies”and says that he attacked Narsa Nayaka with his elephant forces but wasdefeated and taken prisoner.10 (S.K.Aiyangar, Sources of VijayanagarHistory, p.109.) The Koil-Olugu gives clear indications of his high handed andoppressive rule in relation to the Srirangam temple.11 (KO.p.166-67) Itsays that Koneriraja favoured the Siva temple at Anaikkaval(Jambukesvaram) at the cost of the Vaisnava temple at Srirangam. Heallowed the people of Jambukesvaram to encroach upon the estates of theSrirangam temple, leased its cultivable lands to co-heirs like KottaiSamandanar and Senrappa Nayakkar, took away from the temple a lot ofgold in the name of taxes like pattanavari, kanikkai, pattu pativattam, andkudiyiruppu and oppressed the Vaisnavas of the temple in various ways.Helpless against such oppression and harassment two jiyas and a few ekangisof the temple ascended the eastern gopure of the Akalangan enclosure (theVellai Gopuram or the white tower) and sacrificed their lives by castingthemselves down. This satyagraha however, was fruitless and Konerirajacontinued his oppressive exactions. Kandadai Ramanuja Aiyangar maderepeated complaints to Narasa Nayaka about this state of affairs. Thelatter came to Tiruccirapalli with large armies and defeated and killedKoneriraja in battle. He had the temple lands released from the leases thathad been effected by Koneriraja and made them tax and his father NagamaNayaka are said to have come to the temple and offered worship toRanganatha, which was arranged by Kandadai Ramanuja.12 (Narasa Nayaka’sfather was Isvara Nayaka and not Nagama Nayaka. The Olugu, obviously,has made a confusion between Narasa Nayaka, and Viswanatha Nayaka.)

Narasa Nayaka offered to the Perumal many jewels like a necklace of pearlsand diamonds with a pendent, eating plates, tiruvencamaras or chauries andmany varieties of silk cloth or pitambara for the adornment of the idol. Tocommemorate his own name he made a permanent provision for themaintenance of a 100 maid-servants for the pounding and shifting of paddyand other grains in the store-house. The Olugu adds that he appointed(Kandadai) Madhava Aiyangar to supervise the proper supply of the day today requirements of the temple involved in the decoration of the divineimage, worship of the Perumal, etc.

The incident of self immolation as a protest against the harassment ofthe temple is attested by an inscription in the Srirangam temple incised incharacters of the 15th century over a panel containing the image of anascetic wielding a sickle in his hands, sculptured on the jamb of the Vellaigopuram.13 (87 of 1936-37; pt.para 78) This record gives the cyclic yearSaumya, corresponding to A.D.1487-90. It states that Periyalvar, theagent or Srikaryam of Ilandakalamedutta Alagiyamanavaladasan, flung himselfdown from the gopura and lost his life to show his protest against thewithholding of the scale of allowances in the temple and the greatirregularities that prevailed in the conduct of worship. Alagiyamanavaladasanof this inscription may be identical with Alagiyamanavala Jiyar, who is statedto have held the gaddi of Sriranganarayana Jiyar between the years S.1389and S.1409 (A.D.1467-1487).14 (No.13 in the Sriranganarayana JiyarGuruparamparai.) As a result of this protest full padittaram, i.e.,allowance, was subsequently restored and in memory of this act of selfimmolation the blowing of the ekkalam and the privilege of being carried inprocession in a car and other honours were shown to an image of thisPeriyalvar. The other jamb of the Vellai gopura opposite to the onecontaining this panel, has two identical figurines without any explanatoryinscription. Most probably these three constitute the Jiyar and the ekangisreferred to by the Olugu, which says that Kandadai Ramanujan had theimages carved and the inscription incised to commemorate the satyagrahis.An inscription on a stone slab to the east of southern Raya gopura refers toanother satyagrahi called Appa Aiyangar, the agent or Srikaryam ofAlagiyamanavaladasan.15 (S.I.Temple Inscriptions Vol.2, p.733.) He isstated to have cast himself down from the top of this gopura and sacrifiedhis life to protest against withholding of all allowances and mismanagement ofthe temple.

Two inscriptions of Mahamadalesvara Konerideva Maharaja fromSrirangam dated in the cyclic year Paridapi (1492) would make one feel that

Koneriraja was not after all such a Saiva bigot prejudiced against theVaisnava temple at Srirangam as depicted in the Koil-Olugu,16 (115 and 116of 1937-38.) perhaps his oppression was purely on the administrative side.For these epigraphs record his benefactions to the Vaisnava temple; a giftof the doors of the gopura gateway, now called the Sokkappanai-vasal(karttikai-gopuram) and an endowment of three velis of land in Piccandarkoil(Bikshandarkoil near Srirangam) for providing musarodaram (curd-riceofferings). Probably he gave these gifts more in the capacity of a governorof the country than as a pious benefactor of the Vaisnava temple. It mayalso be noted that he does not figure as a great benefactor of the Saivatemple at Jambukesvaram.

The inscriptions of Krisnadevaraya in the Srirangam Temple

The circumstances under which the dynasty of Saluva Narasimha wascut short as a result of the assassination of both of his sons and how thedynasty of Narasa Nayaka, the Tuluvas, was established in power are wellknown. Vira Narasimha (1505-1509), the first of the Tuluvas and a son ofNarasa Nayaka, was succeeded by his half-brother, Krisnadevaraja (1509-1531), a son of Narasa Nayaka by Nagaladevi, and the greatest of theVijayanagara kings. The next set of inscriptions in the Srirangam templecoming under our purview belong to the reign of this king. Some of these arecopper plate grants in the custody of the temple and register gifts ofvillages to Brahmanas. The Srirangam temple appears as donee in a fewcases. The earliest is a stone epigraph dated 1511.16a (257 of 1929-30.)It registers a gift of land in the village of Manakkudi Sendamaraikkannanalluralias Gangaiyanpettai in Uraiyur-kurram, a sub-division of TenkaraiRajagambhira-valanadu to the temple of Sriranganathadeva for daily andspecial offerings to the god by Lingayan, son of Patsala Nagusetti ofPunnagasila gotra, a traivarnika of the Perungondairajya. The next is acopper plate inscription dated 1514.17 (C.P.No.23 of 1905-06; EI.XVIII.pp.160-2.) It says that on the Go-dvadasi tithi (Asvina suklaDvadasi) in the month of Karttika of that year Krisnadevaraya, being in thepresence of god Virupaksa in the temple at Vijayanagara, granted the villageof Ennakkudi, christened as Krisnarayapuram to Allala Bhatta, son ofVaradarajarya, who was a master of the six systems of philosophy. On thisoccasion the king made the Gosahasra mahadana (gift of a 1,000 cows toBrahmanas). The village was situated on the banks of the Kaveri, but itexact location has not been made out because some of its neighbouringvillages, whose names are given, viz., Pelaikkudi and Karkaktai, have notbeen identified. The fact that the copper plate grant was obtained from the

Srirangam temple suggests that the donee or his successors might havegifted away the village to the temple.

Three inscriptions of Krisnaraya dated in 1514, 1515 and 1520 havebeen already referred to while dealing with Kandadai Ramanuja Iyengar andhis disciple Madhava Iyengar. An inscription dated 1516 is important becauseit says that in that year Krisnadevaraya visited Srirangam and made a giftof five villages for providing offerings and worship to the god. In thepreamble a list of the conquests of the king is given.18 (98 of 1938-39.) InKannanur there is an inscription of Krishnadevaraya dated 1517. It recordsremission of certain taxes amounting to 10,000 gold pieces and consisting ofjodi, sulavari, piravari and arasuperu in favour of a number of Saiva andVaisnava temples in the Tamil country.19 (Punjai inscription ofKrisnadevaraya, ed.by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri.) The next inscription, dated1518, registers a gift of the village Ninnaiyur in Kilangu-nadu inRajarajapura-cavadi by Rayasam Kodnanarasayya for providing offerings andworship to the god Ranganatha.20 (66 of 1938-39.) The donor was anofficer of the king, perhaps secretary. An inscription dated 1522 registersa gift of money by Timmappa, son of Peddappa Nayaka, the vasalbokisam(palace treasury officer) of Krisnarayar Maharayar for providing offering tothe god on the occasion of the padivettai on the third day of theSankramana festival.21 (68 of 1938-39.) The next inscription is dated inthe next year. It registers a gift of land at Ninriyur by a certain ManalurPillai Appayan for the celebration of the Sriramanavami festival in theSrirangam temple. The land had been originally granted to the donor byKrisnadevaraya in the cyclic year Bhava (1514).22 (265 of 1929-30.) Thenext inscription bears the date S.1446 (A.D.1524) and mentionsTirumalaideva Maharaja as the reigning king.23 (265 of 1929-30.) This wasthe son of Krisnadevaraya, who was crowned heir apparent in his 6th yearand who died the very same year. He is represented by a few inscriptions,all dated in 1524. The one at Srirangam registers a gift of 10,500cakrapanam (silver coins) for the provision of midnight offerings to godRanganatha by Ramanujadas alias Laksmipati Setti and his brother Antappa,sons of Tippu Setti of the Sahasra gotra and disciples of Kandadai NainarAiyangar. This also registers gift of money by the former for certainornaments to the images of the god and the goddess. Another inscription ofthe same year records an order of the king to his pradhani Timmarasaiyan,making a gift of the village Tandakurai as Tiruvidaiyattam to the temple forofferings to the deity and for feeding devotees in the Ramanujakutam.24(258 of 1929-30) The next, dated 1526, states that the king plated withgold the two doors of the first mantapa. This probably refers to the doors

gold the two doors of the first mantapa. This probably refers to the doors

of the sanctum rather than the two doorways of the Alagiyamanavalantirumantapa. It registers, in addition, the gift of a circular pitha to the godby one Isvara, the brother of Ananta of the Bharadwaraj gotra.25 (120 of1937-38) An inscription dated in the next year registers gift of the villageGuhapriyam to the god and provision made for the feeding of Srivaisnavas inthe Kandadai-nayan-tirumaligai.26 (73 of 1938-39.) Another inscriptionconnected with the above states that Vasavyya-Nayaka, son of KobalaTippan Nayak having died, his sons Periya Ramappa and Siru Ramappa, madea gift of the village, Guhapriyam, as poliyuttu to the god for providingofferings and worship in the Vasavyya Nayakkan mantapa on the day oftheir father’s (death) anniversary.27 (74 of 1938-39.) A village wasgranted, in other words, for providing special offerings to the god on theoccasion of the death anniversary of an individual.

The next inscription is a copper plate grant dated in S.1540(A.D.1528). Like the one dated fourteen years earlier, considered above, itrecords the grant of a village by the king, on the day of Utthana-dvadasi.On that day, in the month of Karttika, the king made a grant of a villagecalled Vadabur-Ekambarapuram, christened as Krisnarayapuram situated onthe southern bank of the river Kaveri in the Tiruvalursima (NagappattinamTaluk) of the Colamandala, to a number of brahmanas of various gotras,sutras and vedas.28 (C.P.No.10 of 1936-37.) It cannot be said definitelythat this village subsequently passed under the control of the Srirangamtemple. The fact that the temple was in possession of this grant mightsuggest such an inference, but it is clear that, far distant as it was, thevillage could not have been of any practical use to the temple. No king ismentioned in the next inscription but it gives the date 1529. It registersgift of money by Malikuniyaninaperumal Aiyangar, son of VedavyasabattanRangaiyanagar of the Harita gotra for offerings, etc., during the Kausika-tirunal festival in the temple.29 (19 of 1938-39) The last of the series isdated (1530) and it mentions a chief by name Cennaya Balayadeva, whofigures as king and donor.30 (56 of 1892; SII IV 503.) The chief callshimself a maharaja and an ornament of the Cola race and assumes thecharacteristic Telugu Coda titles like Uraiyurpurvaradhisvara. From a fewinscriptions it is known that Telugu Codas, claiming direct discent from theColas of the Tamil country, survived as the 16th century. The Vijayanagarchronicles of this period allude to Cola kings reigning in south India. In theSaluvabhyudayam Cola king figures as one of the enemies of SaluvaNarasimha.31 (Dr.S.K.Aiyangar, sources p.91) A Cola is also said to haveopposed the advance of Narasa Nayaka in the south.32 (Further sources,vol.1, pp.168-9.) The Cola chieftains of this period were invariably the

vol.1, pp.168-9.) The Cola chieftains of this period were invariably the

feudatories of the Vijayanagar sovereigns though they called themselvesMaharaja. The inscription under reference records the following gifts ofCennaya Balayadeva: gold for offerings to the god Sriranganatha, goldornaments, silver vessels and a garden to the god and the goddess Niculavallior Uraiyurvalli Nacciyar, whose procession image he newly set up in thetemple at Srirangam. To the garden donated in the name of UraiyurNacciyar the Perumal was brought on the 8th festival day in the month ofMasi, and this is mentioned as the Cattalo or grant of Perumal Krisnarayar.Previous and offerings to be made to the god on this occasion are detailedand Alagiyamanavala Jiyar and Ember Iyengar are mentioned as thebeneficiaries. The son of this donor, also called Balayadeva Maharaja, isknown to have been one of the feudatories of Acyuta, the successor ofKrishnadevaraya.33 (ARE., 1915-16, pt.II, para 67.)

Acyutaraya and the Srirangam Temple

There are numerous inscriptions of Acyutaraya (1530-1541) in theSrirangam temple, which bring him, his family and his officers into intimatecontact with the shrine. Incidentally they reflect its prosperity. It is wellknown that the king made Srirangam his headquarters in the course of hissouthern expedition (1532).

While the southern territories acknowledged the supremacy ofKrisnadevaraya they seem to have grown restive soon after his death. TheAcyutarayabhyudayam gives details of the southern expedition ofAcyutaraya. It is said that Vira Narasinga Nayaka or Saluva Dannayakka,better known as Cellappa or Sellapa, one of the subordinate governors of theRaya, vevolted and after being defeated in battle, fled to Travancore forprotection. Sellappa and the king of Travancore, the Cere, joined togetherand drove the Pandya out of his ancestral territories. On the appeal of thePandya for help the Raya marched south against the Cera.

The Acyutarayabhyudayam traces Acyuta’s march in detail. The Rayastarted from Vijayanagar and reached Srirangam via Tirupati, Kanci andTiruvannamalai, upon whose shrines he showered his rich donations. While atSrirangam his brother-in-law, Salakaraju Timmaraju, requested that he beplaced in command of the rest of the expedition. To this Acyuta consentedand himself camped at Srirangam. The campaign was successful and therebels were brought as prisoners.

The following is the list of the inscriptions of Acyutaraya in theSrirangam temple arranged chronologically. Among the donors are private

individuals in addition to the king, the queens and his officers. The earliest isdated 1530.34 (263 of 1929-30) It records gift of gold by Timmaiyanagar,son of Obalayya of Sindakula gotra of Kundur, the disciple ofRamanujaiyangar for the provision of offerings to the god Sriranganatha onthe fourth day of the Bhupati-Udaiyar festival. Another inscription of thesame year registers the gift of the annual income from the village Vayiruchiin Sela-nadu, a sub-division of Kunrathurcavadi by a subordinate of the kingby name Timmarasa alias Krisnaraya Nayaka, son of Dandu Obalarasa fordaily offerings in the temple.35 (266 of 1929-30.) The next inscription,dated 1531, registers gift of land in Pudukkudi in Mala-nadu by Ellamarasa,son of Anantayyan of the Atreya-gotra, a resident of Padirikuppam in theChandragiri-rajya for the provision of offerings and worship to the godduring the festival called Bhupati-Udaiyar-tirunal celebrated in the moth ofTai.36 (24 of 1938-39.) The donor is said to have been a mace-bearer ofthe god.

The next inscription, dated in S.1454 (A.D.1532), refers to the visitto the temple of the king with his queens, Varadacci Amman and OduvaTirumalai Amman, and prince Cikka Venkatadri, and registers the royal giftof 1,200 gold coins (pon) and three villages for conducting with the incomethereon services (sandi) to the god in their respective names.37 (16 of1938-39; part II, para 52.) This inscription incidentally gives a full list ofthe king’s military achievements, in the prasasti portion. It also refers to acertain Nallar Aiyangar as the king’s preceptor (nammudaiyagurukkal).Another inscription also dated 1532, registers a gift of land in VadakaraiSedangudi by Vallabhamman, the wife of Salakkaraja (probably the same asthe father-in-law of Acyuta), and disciple of Tirumalai TattamangarNallatayar Amman for offerings and worship to the image of Sriranganathaon the occasion of the brahmotsava in the month of Tai.38 (259 of 1929-30.) The next inscription, dated 1533, registers gift of land in Turaiyur andMuttarasanallur by Sankarasayyan, the nephew of Avasaram Mallarasayyan,for providing, for the merit of the king, offerings to the god in the thousandpillared mantapa during the Vedaparayana tirumal (Adyayanotsava) in themonth of Dhanus.39 (36 of 1938-39.) The next inscription dated 1534registers the gift of the village Ten-pirambil in Pirambilparru, a subdivisionof Karambainadu by Kasuvu Settiyar, son of Uttukkur Tammu Settiyar ofthe Parambala gotra, a traivarnika of Perungondai, for offerings to the godSriranganatha in Vilavaravidivalanadu, a district of TenkaraiPandikalasanivalanadu Vila-ara-vidi or, the ‘street where the festivals do notcease’ refers to the Citra street and it would appear that this street hadgiven its name to a small division of the kingdom.40 (260 of 1929-30)

given its name to a small division of the kingdom.40 (260 of 1929-30)

The next inscription dated 1534 registers the gift of the villageVadaverkudi in lieu of 500 pon granted as loan, by Peria Tirumalairaja, sonof Salakaiyadeva Maharaja, for providing daily offerings to the god, as theservice of Anantamman, mother of the donor.41 (70 of 1938-39) A portionof the offered food was to be given for feeding of Vaisnavas in theTirumaligai of Appan, son of Kandadai Annan. There are four inscriptionsdated in the year 1535. One records provision made for offerings to the godduring the three services instituted on behalf of the king, queen VaradachiAmman and prince Kumara Venkatadri by Avasaram Mailarasayyan, an officerof the king mentioned above.42 (37 of 1938-39) A portion of the offeredfood was to be set apart for feeding at nights Brahmanas, Sudras andPradesis in a catram and for maintaining water sheds at the northern andeastern gateways (of the temple). Another registers several gifts of godvessels, ornaments, etc. made to the temple by the king, the queen and theprince during the regime of Avasaram Mallarasa.43 (39 of 1938-39) Thethird inscription states that Mahamandalesvara Periya TirumalaidevaMaharaja (Salakaraju Tirumala), son of Salakaiyadeva Maharaja, presentedto the god a gold pendent or padakam.44 (40 of 1938-39) The fourthregisters a gift of gold by Periya Konamman, wife of Periya TirumalaidevaMaharaja, son of Salakaiyadeva Maharaja, of the suryavamsa, for offeringsto the god, from which Srivaisnavas had to be fed in the Tirumaligai ofKandadai Annan Appan of the Vadhula gotra.45 (3 of 1938-39)

An inscription dated 1536 records gift of money by Gnananidhi Udaiyarfor maintaining a perpetual lamp in the temple for the merit of his teacherLaksminarayana Udaiyar.46 (262 of 1929-30) The next inscription dated1537 registers the gift of the village Uraiyur, by the king, for providingofferings and worship to the god on certain specified occasions throughRamabhattarayan, son of Bhutanatha Tittisna Bhattar, of the Gautamagotra.47 (114 of 1938-39) Another inscription, dated in the same year,registers gift of the village Nannur, in Rajagambhiravalanadu, by AdaippattuSirumallappa Nayaka, an officer of the king, for providing offerings andflower-garlands to the god.48 (26 of 1938-39) A third inscription, dated inthe same year and engraved on a pillar in the mantapa called theAcyutarayamantapa on the road leading to Jambukesvaram, states that asthe four pillared mantapa to the west of the tank outside theJambukesvaram temple was found insufficient to accommodate the deity onthe seventh day festival (ellaikarai tirumal) of the Brahmotsava Sankarasa,son of the Avasaram officer Mallarasayya, enlarged it and converted it intoa sixteen pillared mantapa and provided for offerings to the god as the giftof Acyutadeva Maharaya.49 (123 of 1937-38) The next inscription dated

of Acyutadeva Maharaya.49 (123 of 1937-38) The next inscription dated

1538 registers gift of two velis of land for providing offerings to Tiruvali-Alvan (Cakrattalvar) by Ramacandran alias Sriranganarayana JiyarBrahmaraya, son of Narasimha Bhatta of the Kousika gotra, which he hadobtained from his guru, Sriranganarayana Jiyar, on the occasion of MakaraSankaranti at the time of his spiritual initiation.50 (152 of 1938-39)

The next inscription dated 1539 registers a gift by the king of apearl cuirass (metal breast and back plate) to the god Ranganatha and ajeweled crown for the goddess.51 (151 of 1938-39) The same inscriptionalso registers a gift of two kshetra of land in Sangamavalli, received fromSriranganarayana (jiyar) by Ramacandra for providing offerings (toCakrattalvar). This record is found inscribed on the southern wall of theCakrattalvar shrine and is obviously connected with the epigraph mentioned inthe above para. Another inscription dated in the same year states that theking performed tulabhara-mahadana, in commemoration of which is rajamahisiOduva Tirumaladevi Amman composed two verses celebrating the ananda-nidhi-dana made by the king on the occasion. These verses were recorded onstone along with the inscription during the regime of Srirangappa Nayaka,son of Tuluva Vengala Nayaka, an officer of the king.52 (15 of 1938-39) Astill another record of the same year registers a royal gift to Sriranganathaof a kirita (crown) and karna-patra (ear-ornament) made throughVengalayya, the Rayasam of Ramabhattayya.53 (1 of 1938-39) Anotherrecord of the same year mentions Cennaya Balayadeva, an officer of theking, and registers his gift of the village Kadambankurici in Kilangunadubelonging to Rajarajapuraccavadi, for providing curd-rice offerings toUraiyurvalli Nacciyar.54 (2 of 1938-39) The donor, like his father(referred to in an inscription of Krisnadevaraya, above calls himself aMaharaja and bears a number of birudas like Uraiyurpuravaradisvara,Colakulatilaka, etc. In addition to the village the record registers the gift ofgold and silver ornaments to the goddess by the same chief. In the epigraphcited above his father is stated to have installed the image of UraiyurvalliNacciyar in the Srirangam temple.

Another inscription dated in the same year viz., 1539, is of historicalimportance. It registers a renewal of the gift of the village, Uttamasili,which had been granted to the temple for the maintenance of theRamanujakutam. The endowment had lapsed and hence the renewal.55 (264of 1929-30) The renewal itself was done with the help of an old copperplate grant, which was found out by Singaracar, the agent of theRamanujakutam, and presented to Viswanatha Nayaka of Thiruchirapalli-cavadi. For the first time in a purely epigraphical history of Srirangam we

come across the name of Viswanatha Nayaka as the governor of theThiruchirapalli region. The hero of the incident stated in this inscription andthe man of authority on the spot in the year 1539 was Viswanatha Nayaka.By about this year it would appear that the Nayak viceroys had begun toadminister in full authority the regions of Madurai and Thiruchirapalli thatwere allotted to them by the Raya of Vijayanagar. We shall next turn tothe patronage extended by these Nayak rulers to the Srirangam temple.

The above inscriptions show that the administration of the temple hadsettled down under royal, authority and patronage and that there wasneither excessive official interference nor oppressive exactions.

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORY

Chapter 9THE PATRONAGE OF THE NAYAKS OF MADURAI AND TANJORE

The Nayak rule over the regions of Madurai andTiruccirapalli commenced under Visvanatha Nayaka sometime in the last yearsof Krisnadevaraya of the first of Acyutaraya. In theory the Nayaks wereviceroys of the Rayas of Vijayanagar but in effect they ruled independently.In their early inscriptions the name of the Raya ruling from Ghanagiri(Pennukonda) is invariably mentioned. As Tiruccirapalli was their alternateaction. Some of them, e.g., Vijayaranga Cokkanatha Nayaka. Theirparticular service to the temple was in the direction of repairs andreconstruction of the various sub-shrines, gopuras and mantapas in the outerprakaras. Their association with the temple is attested by the numerousNayak portrait stone images set up on the bases of pillars in the mantapasand prakaras in the temple. The ceilings and walls of the tiruvunnali as wellas the pradaksina and prakara of the Nacciyar shrine were painted overwith scenes from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, almost all of whichare now practically obliterated. Here and there are few Nayak images. Afew labels in Telugu are also visible.

Tradition Visvanatha Nayaka 1529-1564 associates the fortificationsof Thiruchirapalli, the teppakulam (tank) and the town itself with VisvanathaNayaka, the first of the Madura Nayaks. An inscription in the Srirangamtemple dated 1536 records the gift of four silver chains for the swingingcouch (unjal-mancam) of the god by the king (Acyutaraja), who entrustedthem to Visvanatha Nayak.1 (43 of 1938-39) Another inscription dated1538 is a bit damaged. It seems to registers a gift of two villages inMalanadu in Tiruccirapalli-usavadi, by Tirumalai Nayaka, son of KacciVisvanatha Nayak, for providing offerings and worship to the godTiruvenkatanatha consecrated at ellaikkarai (boundary between Srirangamand Jambukesvaram) by the former, for the merit of Acyutaraya Maharayaand Cikkaraya.2 (111 of 1938-39) The mention of Kacci or Kanchipuramneed not pose any difficulty as an epigraph from Perungulam (Tinnevellydistrict) states that Visvanatha Nayak hailed from Kanchipuram andTondaimandalam.3 (ARE. 1932-33, para 58) The Koil-Olugu says thatVisvanatha Nayak offered to the Srirangam temple many jewels and vesselslike pancapatra and platters, a censer and a sahasradarai (1,000 holded)

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a y

plate, all in gold, under the guidance of his guru VaduladesikaNarasimhacarya. He also conducted various festivities for the godRanganatha and these benefactions cost him three lacs of gold pieces.4(KO.p.174) His preceptor, it may be mentioned here, belonged to the familyof Mudaliyandan.

Inscriptions of Sadasivaraya (1542-1565) in the Srirangam Temple

It is well known that Sadasivaraya (1542-1565) was a king only inname, that soon after his accession to the throne a struggle for powerensued between the brothers Salakraju Tirumalas, who were brothers-in-lawof Acyutaraya, on the one side and Ramaraja, the son-in-law ofKrisnadevaraya, successful. He paid Sadasivaraya all the deference due to acrowned king but kept real power in his own hands. Hence the numerousinscriptions in the Srirangam temple, which mention Sadasiva, do not refer tohis visits to the temple nor his gifts, but register gifts mostly of privateindividuals, royal officers and members of the Araviti family, to whichRamaraja belonged.

The earliest inscription dated 1544 registers the gift of the incomefrom two villages Viramanallur and Kumaramangalam for the provision ofpulugu-kappu (civet ointment) to the god every Friday.5 (81 of 1937-38)Another inscription dated in the same year records a gift of the villageMarudur in Paccil-kurram in Malainadu, a sub-division of VadakaraiRajarajavalanadu, in Thiruchirapalli-usavadi by Vitthaladeva Maharaja son ofTimmarayadeva Maharaja for the provision of offerings and worship to thegod Sriranganatha at Tiruvaranagam Tiruppati, valanadu.6 (8 of 1936-37;pt.II, para 62) Vitthaladeva and Cinna Timma were cousin of Ramaraja andthese were sent on a southern expedition to quell the aggressive tendenciesof the king of Travancore and the political as well as the prosletyzingactivities of the Portuguese missionaries established on the Travancorecoast. The inscription further states that Vitthala defeated someKuravanniyar and reopened the Srirangam temple which had been closed forsometime and revived worship therein. It is difficult to find out who exactlywere the Kuravanniyar which may mean ‘petty chieftains’ whom Vitthaladefeated and whose hostile activities had necessitated the closing of theSrirangam temple for some time. The Koil-Olugu does not refer to any suchincident. At this time Visvanatha Nayak was ruling over Tiruccirapalli as theviceroy of the Raya and he would not have suffered any major enemy toexist by his side. As the very name indicates the Kurunilamannar orKuravanniyar were perhaps some of the petty estate holders or polegars

recognised by Visvanatha Nayaka for purposes of local government andmilitary organisation. It may also be stated that Manniyar or Vanniar figureamong the victims of Acyutaraya in the course of his southern expeditions inhis inscriptions as well as the Acyutarayabhyudayam. Vitthala placed his giftof land in charge of Parasarabhatta Singaiyangar for conducting aRamanujakutam at Srirangam. Vitthala’s other gifts to the Srirangam templeare enumerated in another inscription, which gives the genealogy ofVitthaladeva Maharaja and his conquests and achievements.7 (11 of 1936-37) He is said to have overrun all the dominious in the peninsula south ofVijayanagara with the help of his brother Chinna Timma. He made a numberof benefactions to the temple such as providing for the daily sahasranamapuja and the anointment of the divine image with karpurataila every Friday.He also endowed a few villages for the provision of offerings to the god. Anelder brother of his by name Nalla Timma is stated to have made aCandraprabha-vahana in silver for the god while Ahobala Dikshita ofKrishnapuram made a present of a Suryaprabha in gold. Vitthala is said tohave planted pillars of victory at Anantasayanam, Kanyakumari andRamasetu.

The next inscription dated 1549 registers a gift of the village calledCintamani to Srisailapurnacarya Tatacarya alias Auvukku Tiruvenkataiyanagarby Ramaraj, for worship and offerings to the god in the manner in whichthey were conducted in the time of Nalantigal Narayana Jiyar (i.e.,Kuranarayana Jiyar) for the merit of himself and the king. This inscriptionalso refers to the erosion of the river Kaveri into Srirangam and also refersto the erosion of the river Kaveri into Srirangam and its diversion nearCintamani, in the time of a Cola king and the compensation in land in thevillage Kolakkattai granted to the brahmanas of Cintamani. It may be pointedout, here, that Kuranarayana Jiyar is said to have saved the Srirangamtemple from the floods of the Kaveri by effecting a diversion nearCintamani, a village near Thiruchirapalli.8 (KO.p.118) The next inscription,dated 1551, registers a gift of the income of the village Uttamasolanallur inManappidinadu, a sub-division of Tirucirappalli-asavadi, for offerings to thegod Sriranganatha, by Narapparaja, son of Mahamandalesvara NandyalaNarasingaraja.9 (66 of 1936-37; pt.II, page 85) This inscription alsorefers to a previous gift of a portion of the income from the same villagefor a feeding house conducted by Siru-Tirumalaiyangar, son of TalappakkamPeriya Tirumalaiyangar at Srirangam. Narapparaja was the grandson ofSingarayya, the first member of the Nandyala family, ruling over Nandyal inthe Kurnool district. The donee was one of Talapakkam poets, who composedmany panegyries in Sanskrit and Telugu on the god Sri Venkatesa of

Tirupati.10 (T.T.D.Epigraphical Report, pp.284-85) The next inscriptiondated 1553 registers the gift of the village Matteri in Kuruttadalaisirmai byKrishnamman, wife of Peria Timma, son of Ramaraja Timmaraja of Arvidu,for offerings to the god Ranganatha and for feeding Srivaisnavas in theKandai Annan Ramanujakutam at Srirangam.11 (93 of 1937-38) Anotherinscription of the same year registers a gift of lands, after purchase, by acertain Singa-Gangaya, son of Nagu-setty of the Nedunkumara gotra, forofferings on Fridays.12 (58 of 1936-37) Still another record of the sameyear registers the gift of the villages Pasaru in Vallanadu, a sub-division ofTirupparuttisirmai, and Sembiyankalar, by Ramaraja, a son of Ramaraja ofJagaraja Aravidu, for conducting festivals in the temple in the month ofVaikasi.13 (94 of 1937-38)

The next inscription is dated in 1562.14 (60 of 1936-37) Thisrecords the gift of the village Adippuliyur in Ogaimaganai, a sub-division ofAyppadisirmai belonging to Tanjavur-usavadi in Solamandalam for offerings tothe god Sriranganatha by Rayasam Venkata, son of GundamarajaTimmapparaja, of the Aruvelu community. The last in this series, dated1565, registers and endowment in money made by a certain Perumal Jiyar onbehalf of Alagiyamanavala Jiyar, the occupant of the seat ofSriranganarayana Jiyar.15 (57 of 1936-37) With the interest on theendowment offerings were to be made to the god Sriranganatha on theoccasion of the sacred bath of the deity in the Kaveri on the Panguni-uttiram day of the Adibrahmotsava.

The members of the Aravidu dynasty, many of whom figure in theSrirangam records of Sadasivaraya, were the descendants of Araviti Bukka,one of the famous officers of Saluva Narasimha. His grandson, Tirumala,was the first king of the fourth dynasty of Vijayanagar. After the battleof Raksasi-tangidi (1565) Tirumala could not maintain himself at Vijayanagarand hence transferred his capital to Ghanagiri or Penukonda (1567).

Purandaradasa:

The great Vaisnava temple of Srirangam was the loadstar ofdevotional singers in this period as well as in the days of the Alvars.Purandaradasa (1484-1564), who has been regarded as the grandfather ofKarnatak music and the father of the dasa kuta movement, visitedSrirangam in the course of his bardic travels and composed several padas orsongs of devotion in Kannada on Ranganatha.

Acyutappa Nayaka of Tanjore (1530-1614) and the Srirangam Temple

The Nayaka rule over Tanjore is reckoned from the viceroyalty ofSevappa Nayaka, who carried on a peaceful and beneficient administrationbetween the years 1532 and 1580. He was succeeded by his son AcyutappaNayaka (1580-1614). Unlike the Nayaks of Madurai and Gingee Acyutappaof Tanjore maintained a single-minded loyalty to the Raya of Vijayanagar(Penukonda), Venkata I (1585-1614). Contemporary literature and a fewinscriptions bear witness to the deep devotion of this chief to the god ofSrirangam. Even as a prince he made gifts to the temple of Ranganatha. Aninscription on the west wall of the pagalapattu mantapa, dated in S.1489(A.D.1567), refers to this chief as the son of Cinna Cevva and records theprovision made by him, by an endowment of money, for lamps and offerings inthe temple.16 (104 of 1938-39) It also describes the ten avataras ofVisnu. There are two inscriptions outside Srirangam, which testify to theNayaka’s devotion to the temple. One from Melur (Thiruchirapalli Taluk)registers the gift of a garden to the Srirangam temple.17 (410 of 1924)Another inscription from Tiruvaiyaru (Tanjore district) eulogises this king andstates that he made several gifts to the temple of Rangesa at Srirangam.18(426 of 1924) He is said to have paid annual visits to Srirangam andRamesvaram.

Contemporary literary sources throw considerable light on the deeplyreligious character of Acyutappa Nayak. He was a broad-minded religiousbenefactor and among the recepients of his gifts were many Vaisnava andSaiva temples and the Madhva teacher Vijayindra-tirtha, but the Srirangamtemple was his favourite. Govinda Diksita in his Sangita Suhda yagnanarayanaDiksita in his Sahityu Ratnakara, and Ramabhadramba in herRaghunathabhyudayam, have described Acyuta’s benefactions to theSrirangam temple in glowing terms. He is said to have constructed the goldenvimana over the sanctum of the Srirangam temple.19 (S.K.Aiyangar: Sourcesof Vijayanagar History, p.285) This may only mean that he covered theSriranga vimana afresh with gold plates. He is also said to have presentedto the god, Sriranganatha, a gold crown embedded with gems, a jewelledarmour and a golden throne. A few gopuras in the east, west and the northof the temple, a few of the outermost prakara walls, some pleasure gardensand several mantapas are also credited to him.20 (Ibid., p.255)

The Sahityaratnakara, the Raghunathabhyudayam and the letters ofthe Jesuit Fathers Pimenta, Auquetil du Perron and Coutinho aver thatAcyutappa addicated the throne in favour of his son Raghunatha about 1600and retired to Srirangam. Fathers Pimenta and du Jarric say that Ayutapparetired to Srirangam “accompanied in that devotion by his seventy wives, all

of which were to be burned in the same fire with his Carkasee”. FatherCoutinho, writing from Candragiri under dated 17th July, 1600 says: This(Acyutappa died lately. His corpse, along with 370 wives still alive, wasburnt in big fire of sandalwood.” The Raghunathabhyudayam and theSahityaratnakara, however, do not speak of Acyutappa’s death immediatelyafter his retirement to Srirangam, but actually suggest that he lived a longtime after his abdication. The latter work says that Acyutappa retired,after his abdication, to Srirangam, where he spent the rest of his days inthe company of pandits.21 (For arguments against the evidence of thePortuguese Fathers see Vridhagirisan: The Nayaks of Tanjore, pp.57-61)Curiously enough the Koil-Olugu has nothing to say about Acyutappa’sbenefactions.

Inscriptions of the Period of Sriranga I (1572-1585) and Venkata II(1585-1614)

There are a few inscriptions in the Srirangam temple spread over theperiod 1572-1612 covering these two reigns. The reign of Sriranga I wasnot effective owing to internal discords. It is significant that his name doesnot occur in the inscriptions in the temple belonging to his reign while VenkataII or Venkatapatideva Maharaya, the last great ruler of Vijayanagar, ismentioned in a few records. The names of the Nayak viceroys are alsomentioned. The earliest of these is dated 1574.22 (103 of 1938-39) Itrecords the gift of a village in Venpattu-sirmai by Ravasam Tirumalaiyan, sonof Timmappar of the Gautama gotra, to Sriranganatha for food offerings.The next dated 1583 records an endowment of money entrusted to TirumalaiTiruvengada-Tattaiyangar Tirumalaiyangar by Jagadapirayar, son of AnnamaNayaka for feeding Srivaisnava in the Ramanujakutam in Srirangam.23 (91 of1936-37) The next, dated 1590, registers a similar endowment of 70varahan entrusted to the same person by Krisnappa Nayaka, son ofAdattaraya of the Visnuvardhana gotra, for feeding eight Vaisnavas daily inthe temple.24 (90 of 1936-37) Another inscription dated in the same yearmentions Venkatapatideva Maharaya as king.25 (79 of 1936-37) It recordsan endowment in money by a certain Cenna-raja, son of Tirumalaiyan ofPattikondai, for offerings during the monthly festival in the shrine ofParamapadanathan. The next inscription dated 1592 registers a gift of landby purchase in Kilai Perungavur, alias Lakkanadanayakapuram, in the easternportion of Malainadu in Rajaraja valanadu on the northern bank of the Kaveriin tiruccirappali-savadi by Nadiminti Kondu-setty, Mulangi Timmu-setti andothers for the service of the chanting of the Iyarpa in the temple (duringthe Adyayanotsava).26 (35 of 1938-39) The next record is dated 1594 and

mentions Venkata II as the reigning king.27 (97 of 1936-37) It recordssale of house-sites by two brahmanas of the temple to the Nayaka ofTanjore, Acyutappa, son of Sevappa, for establishing a Ramanujakutam. Thenext dated 1597 registers gift of land by purchase by Peddana NayakaKasturi Rangappa Nayaka of Thiruchirapalli for providing offerings andworship to the god of Srirangam during the Citrapaurnami festival.28 (99 of1938-39) The donor was probably a kinsman of the contemporary Nayak ofMadurai, Krishnappa Nayak II (1595-1601).29 (The Koil-Olugu gives a listof Nayaka rulers and one of the early Nayaks, according to this list, isKasturi Rangappa. He is said to have ruled for seven days only)

The next inscription is dated 1608. It registers gift of money byEkangi Bhattar Tiruvengadaiyan, the disciple of Vedavyasa BhattarayyangarKovilappayar, for providing offerings to the god on the day of his guru’sasterism Cittirai.30 (49 of 1938-39) The next inscription mentions VenkataII and is dated 1611.31 (16 of 1936-37) It registers gift of money by oneParamesvaran, son of Manga-setti, a merchant of Srirangam for offerings tothe god Sriranganatha, while halting at the Vitthalarajan mantapa in theSaluvanayakkan toppu when taken in procession to Uraiyur on the 5th and6th days of the Brahmotsava. The last of the series is dated 1612.32 (8of 1938-39; pt.II, para 56) It registers a gift of money by RamanujaJiyar of the lineage of Yatindrapranavaprabhava pillai Lokacarya Jiyar forofferings to the god during the Tiruadyayanam festival in the month ofCittirai in honour of Emberumanar (Udaiyavar). The prefatory portion of therecord refers to Udaiyavar or Ramanuja in glowing terms. He is called arajahamsa at the lotus feet of Srirangaraja, a bee at the feet ofParankusa, one born to save the whole world, one who improved the wealthof the (Srirangam) temple (by reforming its administration) and as one whowas thrilled by the very mention of the name Ponnarangam.

THE BENEFACTIONS OF THE MADURAI NAYAKS KRISNAPPA NAYAK I(1564-72) AND KRISHNAPPA NAYAK II (1595-1601)

The Koil-Olugu says that Krisnappa Nayak I offered to Sriranganathaa large number of jewels and conducted with the help and guidance of KumaraNarasimha Vaduladesika many festivities for the god. He is also said to haveconstructed a bathing ghat with steps and a mantapam on the banks of thesouthern Kaveri (meaning probably the Amma Mantapam of the present day).Kumara Krisna or Krisnappa Nayak II, the grandson of Krisnappa Nayak I,is a said to have offered to the god of Srirangam a diamond shirt, a diamondcrown, etc., worth a lakh and fifty thousand gold pieces.33 (KO., pp.174-

75) From inscriptions it is known that the early Nayaks extended theirpatronage equally to the Saiva temple at Jambukesvaram.34 (138 of 1936-37 and 1 and 2 of 1938-39, pt.II of 1938-39, paras 74 and 75)

THE GREAT CIVIL WAR OF VIJAYANAGAR (1614-17) AND THESRIRANGAM TEMPLE: THE ACCOUNT IN THE KOIL OLUGU

The death of Venkata II in 1614 was the prelude to a bloody war ofsuccession at the imperial capital, viz., Vellore, which in its turn was knownas Vijayanagar. This civil was threw the Tamil Country into much confusionand offered a good chance to the restless feudatories to assumeindependence. Authentic accounts of the civil war are given in the worksRamarajiyamu, Raghunathabhyudayam and Sahityaratnakara. These areconfirmed by the accounts of foreigners like Barradas and Queyroz. VenkataII died without a son to succeed him but before his death he nominated hisnephew Sriranga as heir apparent. When Sriranga II ascended the thronehe was opposed by Jagaraya, the father of Bayama, one of the queens ofVenkata II, who put forward the claims of a pretender, a putative son ofhis sister. The loyalist party was headed by one Yacama Nayak, theancestor of the Rajas of Venkatagiri. Jagaraya succeeded in capturing theking and his family and putting them to the sword. Out of this slaughterRama, a son of Sriranga II, alone escaped through the efforts of a loyalwasherman. Yacama Nayak took the prince under his benign protection anddeclared a relentless war upon the rebel Jagaraya. According to all accountsthe Nayaks of Madurai and Cenji (Gingee) joined forces with Jagaraya whilethe Nayak of Tanjore threw his lot with Yacama. The Sahityaratnakara tellsus that when Acyutappa Nayak of Tanjore and his son Raghunatha wereinformed by a messenger of the rapid turn of events at the imperial capitalYacama Nayak was already marching south to seek their help while Jagarayawas also proceeding in the same direction to join forces with his allies atSrirangam as already arranged between them.35 (S.K.Aiyangar: Sources,p.273) The jungles in the region of Srirangam and Thiruchirapalli had beenchosen as the rendezvous and there Jagaraya was tarrying with his troopseagerly waiting for the troops from Madurai and Cenjei. According toBaradas both Yacama Nayak and Jagaraya had reached the environs ofThiruchirapalli and were making preparations for a final trial of strength.Under the date 12th December 1616 he writes. “Indeed there are nowassembled in the field in the large open plains of Trinchenapali not only thehundred thousand men that each party has, but as many as a million ofsoldeirs”.36 (R.Sewell, A forgotten Empire, p.230 (National Book Trust) )The Nayak of Madurai of the time was muttu Virappa I (1609-1623).

Guided by the twin objects of gaining complete independence and waging a waron the neighbouring Nayakship of Tanjore he had thrown his lot withJagaraya. Leon Besse in his La Mission due Madure says: “…. The Nayak ofMadura removed his court and army to Trichinopoly in A.D.1616 with theobject of making war with the king of Tanjore.37 (Sathianathier: TheNayaks of Madura, p.103, n.16.) It is clear that the transfer of thecapital from Madurai to Thiruchirapalli, with its rock and fortifications, waseffected for strategic purposes. With the object of preventing the junctionof Yacama Nayak and the fugitive prince with the Nayak of Tanjore theGrand Anicut across the Kaveri, eight miles east of Tiruccirapalli, was blownup. However in the battle fought at Tohur or Toppur, two miles from theGrand Anicut on the southern bank of the Kaveri in 1617 the loyallists underYacama Nayak won a decisive victory. It was a triumph for the rightful heirto the throne of Vijayanagar and the policy of Raghunatha Nayak ofTanjore. This did not affect the position of Muttu Virappa Nayak in anyway. Till about the year 1640 Tiruccirapalli continued and the headquartersof the Nayak of Madurai.

At this juncture the Koil-Olugu sketches, in detail a dispute atSrirangam, between a certain Uttamanambi (whose full name is notmentioned) and Bhattar Tirumalacaryar (who was probably in charge of thetemple worship) over the possession of a Garuda seal, which carried with it atitle to hereditary rights to certain lands belonging to the temple.38 (KO.,pp.175-177; 182-3) Uttamanambi, we are told, carried the case to MuttuVirappa Nayak, made his accusations against Tirumalacaryar and had thecurrency of his Garuda seal in the temple stopped. Subsequently whenJagaraya came with his armies to Thiruchirapalli Muttu Virappa, whoprobably knew that a battle was imminent in the neighbourhood, askedTirumalacaryar to lodge all the moveable property of the Srirangam temple,i.e., the jewels, etc., in his fortress at Thiruchirapalli for safety. BhattarTirumalacaryar refused to effect the transfer on the plea that the“property of Arangar (Sriranganatha) will not cross the river (Kaveri)”.Declaring that he would defend the temple if the occasion arose he gatheredtogether an army of tridandin-sanyasis and Srivaisnavas bearing theRamanujan sword-about 4,000 in number and assigned each devotee to onehouse in Srirangam. They were to shout Srimad Rangam Mahattama (theshrine of Srirangam is great and magnificent). “The Raya (Yacama with theprince Rama) came to know of this when his army reached Togur and underhis orders Raghunatha Nayak (of Tanjore), along with his adaippikkaran(personal servant carrying the betal pouch), entered the temple andworshipped the god. Tirumalacaryar said to him, ‘As you have won so many

worshipped the god. Tirumalacaryar said to him, ‘As you have won so many

victories I will make Srirangam too yours,’ and pleased him with suchstrategic words. Raghunatha Nayak returned with delight.” These wordsuttered probably with the autonomy and safety of the temple town ofSrirangam in his mind were seized upon by his tenemy, Uttamanambi, who issaid to have sent to Muttu Virappa Nayak an epistle purporting to have beenwritten by the Bhattar to the Raya (i.e., the loyallist party of Yacama)offering to surrender the temple. The Nayak was also invited to the templeto know for himself the truth. Pranadartihara Vaduladesikar alias Annangar,the accarya of the Nayak, was persuaded to depose against Tirumalacaryarmuch against his will, as otherwise Uttamanambi had protested that he coulddie along with his kith and kin by taking poison. Convinced thatTirumalacaryar would have over the Srirangam temple with all its propertyto his enemy, Raghunatha Nayak of Tanjore, Muttu Virappa Nayak effectedthe capture of Tirumalacaryar near the gateway of the temple with the helpof Uttamanambi and Gaddival Nayakkan, a disciple of Tirumalacaryar. Thecaptive was imprisoned in the Tiruccirappali fort for about six months. Thepersecution of the Bhattar at the instigation of Uttamanambi was completewhen the former’s house at Srirangam was plundered, his followers capturedand his matha transferred to Srirangam Tatacaryar. The family of theBhattar took refuse in Turaiyur. The Reddy of Turaiyur, we are told, hadBhattar Tirumalacaryar released on payment of a ransom of 20,000 goldpieces and maintained him in his town for seven years. Calculating from thedate of the battle of Toppur, i.e., 1617 this brings us to the date 1623,which is also the last regnal year of Muttu Virappa. Bhattar, it is said, gotback his rights from Tirumalai Souri (Tirumala Nayak), the successor ofMuttu Virappa.

The Koil-Olugu’s references to the coming of the Raya (Yacama andprince Rama) to Thiruchirapalli, the mention of Raghunatha Nayak as apartisan of Yacama Nayak and the reference to the camp at Toghur areaccurate and valuable to a student of South Indian History. Of particularimportance to the history of the Srirangam temple is the implied fact thatthe Nayak of Madurai and Thiruchirapalli, viz., Muttu Virappa Nayak, wasanxious to save it from falling into the hands of his enemy, the TanjoreNayak, Ragunatha, but Bhattar Tirumalacaryar wanted to steer clear of thetwo hostile princes and remain neutral. In this policy he succeeded but at aterrible cost, thanks to the machinations of his foe Uttamanambi. This isclear case of mutually jealous wardens or officers of the temple pursuingtheir quarrel to a bitter and taking advantage of a critical politicalbackground.

TIRUMALA NAYAK (1623-1659) AND THE SRIRANGAM TEMPLE

Tirumala Nayak (1623-1659), the best known Nayak ruler ofMadurai, was the younger brother and successor of Muttu Virappa. Hetransferred the capital back from Thiruchirapalli to Madurai. TheMriyunjaya manuscripts and other chronicles place this event immediatelyafter the accession of Tirumala, i.e, about 1623-24. The Nayak, it is said,was attacked by violent catarrh while he was proceeding from Thiruchirapallito Madurai for his coronation and that both the Vaisnava and Saiva gods onthe island of Srirangam were not able to heal it. At Dindigul Cokkanatha andMinaksi, the god and goddess of Madurai, appeared before him in a visionand promised to cure the illness on condition that the Nayak gave upTiruciprappalli and made Madurai his capital, as of old. Accordingly Tirumalamade Madurai his permanent residence and rendered in may ways the cityand its temple beautiful.39 (IA. XLV. P.150) From the Jesuit letters, whichare certainly more reliable, however, it is learnt that the transfer wasbrought about not immediately after the accession of the Nayak to thethrone but some time after 1640. Two letters dated 1624 and 1640 referto the Nayak residing in Thiruchirapalli while another dated 1644 mentionsthe Nayak residing in Madurai implying that the transfer was effectedsometime between 1640 and 1644.40 (The Nayak of Madura, op.cit.,pp.113-15) It is needless to investigate the exact cause or cause of thetransfer. It was brought about probably because Madurai was a morecentral as also the historic capital of the Pandyan kingdom.

The Olugu’s account of the visit of Kodikannikadanam Tatacarya to theSrirangam Temple

The Koil-Olugu carries an interesting account of a Nayak king calledMuttu Virappa, who could not persuade the Stalattar of the Srirangamtemple to accord a fitting reception to Kodikkannikadanam Tatacarya, whenhe visited the Srirangam temple as an emissary of the Raya of Vijayanagar.It also gives the date S.1507 or A.D.1585 or thereabouts for the visit.41(KO., p.183.) This date does not fall within the reign of either MuttuVirappa I (1609-1623) or Muttu Virappa II, whose reign was confined tothe year 1659. The Nayak in question may be identified with TirumalaNayak for Kodikkannikadanam Tatacarya is said to have visited Srirangamafter visiting Tirupati with the intention of gold-plating the vimana42 (Ibid.)and, from independent sources, his visit to Tirupati is placed in 1630, asexplained below. The sequence of events followed by the Olugu too points tothe same conclusion, for the incident mentioned below follows the narration of

the dispute between Uttamanambi and Tirumalacaryar said to have takenplace during the reign of Muttu Virappa.

The Olugu’s account is this.43 (Ibid., pp.183-186) Ettur TirumalaiTatacarya, better known as Kumara Tatacarya and KodikannikadanamTatacarya proceeded to Srirangam, after visiting Tirupati, with a letterfrom the Raya, most probably Venkata III (1630-1642), and with goldplates intended for the vimana of the temple. This Vaisnava Acarya was thewell known preceptor of Venkata II (1585-1614) and his successors. Frominscriptions in Kancipuram and Tirupati it is known that he was learned in theVedas, was a native of Kanci, where he lived in royal splendour and that hisactivities ranged between the years 1575 and 1630.44 (T.T.D.EpigraphicalReport, pp.310-314) He came to Phanipatigiri (Tirupati) in Pramoduta,corresponding to 1630 and repaired and regilt the punyakoti or anandanilayavimana of the Venkatesvara shrine. He had earlier gilded the vimanas of GodVaradaraja and Goddess Laksmi of Kanci. Before he arrived in Srirangam theNayak received a letter from the Raya through an emissary, which said thathe should meet Tatacaryar along with the Stalattar of the temple, take hisfamily in a palanquin upto the Aryabhattal gateway and act according to hiswishes. The Nayak, i.e., Tirumala Nayak (who was in Thiruchirapalli upto1640, as shown above) came to Srirangam and told Bhattar (Tirumalacaryar,who owed his restoration to him) of the Raya’s epistle. Bhattar, the chiefpriest, is said to have referred the Nayak to Annangar, the treasurer. Asalready pointed out the relations between the Stalattar, i.e, the chiefofficers of the temple, viz., the chief priest (Bhattar), the treasurer(Annangar, who was also the preceptor or Acarya of the Nayak) andUttamanambi, the manager, were strained by jealously and quarrels of apersonal nature. This evil was only a reflection of the unsettled politicalconditions of the day on the working of autonomous institutions, wealthy andassured of a steady income like the Srirangam temple. Another factor ofimportance needs to be highlighted here, and that is Tatachar was aVadakalai, while the Stalattar were Tenkalais. Hence when the Nayakrequested Annangar to meet Tatacaryar and welcome his the latter refusedto do any such thing. “When the Nayak requested him to do it for his sake,Annangar roundly declared that he did not need his favour for anything, andannounced that if the Nayak rendered any honour to Tatacaryar within thetemple many Jiyars and Srivaisnavas would be sacrificing their lives. TheNayak, quite petrified, reported the situation to Tatacaryar, who said ingreat rate. ‘the Tenkalaiyar of Perumal Koil (i.e., Kancipuram) created thesame hindrances, but I was able to subdue them. You are a good-for-nothing’. Tatacarya, in effect received no honour. His family actually got out

nothing’. Tatacarya, in effect received no honour. His family actually got out

of their palanquin outside the northern gateway of the Nacciyar shrine andonly then could they worship the perumal. Hence he turned back with thegold plates, which he assigned to the vimana of Alagar-koil, and proceededto the north.” When the Raya came to known of this he is stated to havesent two persons, Krisnarayar and Vittalarayar to inquire into the matterand punish the Nayak, if necessary. Finding that “both the Stalattar andthe Nayak were not at fault” they sent a conciliatory reply to the Raya.The Nayak is said to have sent to the Raya an effigy of his head in gold andsome money as tribute. He developed a hatred towards and Srirangamtemple and its Stalattar. The chronicle concludes by saying that hedisregarded his own Vaisnava Acarya, Pranadartihava Vaduladesikar(Annangar) and sought the discipleship of the Saivite Ayyagalayyan ofJambukesvaram, from whom he received pancaksara upadesam.45 (ThisSaivaite saint figures in an inscription of modern characters atJambukesvaram) One other reason is also provided by the Olugu to explainthe Nayak’s hatred of his Acarya. We are told that once when the Nayakvisited the Srirangam temple Annangar arranged a feast in which hedisplayed numerous silver and gold vessels which were, as the chroniclerexplains “all of them, excepting those supplied to Nayak really lead andbrass vessels coated with silver and gold respectively at a cost of 100 pons.The Nayak wondered how, while in his palace there were but a few silverand gold vessels Annangar could command so many of them, and doubtedwhether his ancestors could have squandered away all the palace property inthis sort of benefaction.” On another occasion, when a son was born to theNayak, we are told, Annangar presented to him a gold cradle, worth 2,000pons.45a (KO., pp.179-181; 112 of 1936-37) These incidents enraged theNayak, who perhaps suspected the honesty of his guru. His attempts tocheck the temple property were are no avail.

To attempt a verification of the above account a knowledge of thepolitical background of the day is necessary. Though the loyallists won thecivil war of 1614-17 the prince, for whom they fought (viz. Sriranga II)was murdered within four months of his accession and his son Rama (RamaIV) was made king with Yacama as regent. By this time both Penukonda andCandragiri had been lost to the Muslims and Vellore alone remained for theempire, each being called Vijayanagar, in its turn. Rama ruled as a nominalking from Vellore from 1617 to 1630. He was followed by Venkata III(1630-1642). He was troubled by the treacherous and rebellious schemes ofhis ambitious nephew Sriranga (III). He was the contemporary of TirumalaNayak, whose allegiance to the Vijayanagar suzerein was only in form.Sriranga appealed to Bijapur for help and this brought about two Muslim

Sriranga appealed to Bijapur for help and this brought about two Muslim

invasions, in 1638 and 1641. On the latter occasion Vellore was threatened.Thus conditions were quite opportune for the assumption of completeindependence by the Nayak governors. Tirumala Nayak did not lose thisopportunity and his wars with his neighbours amply bear this out. But, fortheoretical purposes he was not averse to acknowledging the overlordship ofthe Raya. His active hostility against his suzerein started only when SrirangaIII led a precipitate expedition against him with a view to punish him forfailing to assist him in restoring his hegemony. At this time the Nayak hadwithdrawn to Madurai. Failing in his attempt at forming an alliance with theNayak of Tanjore who remained loyal, he induced the sultan of Golkonda toattack Vellore.46 (Sathyanathier, Nayakas of Madura, pp.126-27) Hence itis not unlikely that Tirumala Nayak sent an effigy of his head to VenkataIII in 1640 or sometime earlier as a kind of atonement for the disregardshown to his guru (Tatacarya) by his own guru (Annangar) at Srirangam andthat he renounced his discipleship of the latter and became a disciple of aSaivite teacher of Jambukesvaram though the veracity of these statementscannot be vouchsafed. It is also not unlikely that after his conversion heturned hostile to the Vaisnava shrine in general as described in the Olugu.The statement of the chronicler that “he was at the same time learning thesudarsana mantra as the student of an arcaka at Srirangam” was writtenperhaps in an effort to save face. In any case Tirumala Nayak began toconcentrate his attention after he shifted his capital to Madurai on therenovation of the Minaksi temple and perhaps had no opportunity to turn hisattention again to Srirangam.

Inscriptions belonging to the period of Rama IV, Venkata III and SrirangaIII

There are a few inscriptions in the Srirangam temple falling in thereigns of these kings (1617-1672). The smallness of their number isobviously due to the unsettled political conditions of the day. The absence ofany inscription mentioning Tirumala Nayak may also be noted. The donors aremostly private persons. An inscription dated in S.1542 (A.D.1620) registersgift of money by Nallappillai on of Kandiyur Irulappar, for providing offeringsto the god on the third day of the Masi festival, when the god was taken tothe Ellaikkarai-mantapa constructed by him on the southern bank of thenorthern Kaveri (i.e., the Coleroon) 47 (67 of 1938-39; The Ellaikkaaimantapa is situated near the Coleroon bridge) An inscription dated 1634registers gift of land by Nagaraja, son of Acyutayyaraja of the Gautamagotra, the tanapati of Ram devarayar for providing offerings to the godwhile he halted in the mantapa on the bank of the Candrapuskarani, during

the festival instituted by Krisnappa Nayaka.48 (45 of 1938-39) Aninscription dated 1650 registers a polivuttu gift by Ceruka CennamaNayakkan, son of Vengalappa Nayakkan, for specified offerings to the godon the occasion of the god’s visit to the mantapa in the grove, which wasalso given by the donor to the deity.49 (171 of 1951-52) An inscriptiondated 1655 records a gift (of money) by Vasantarayan for conducting the6th day festival for the god Ranganatha, when the deity would be seated inthe pavilion at Muttarasanallur, near Srirangam.50 (176 of 1951-52.Muttarasanallur is about 6 miles from Srirangam and today the deity is nottaken to that place on the 6th day of any festival. According to theinscription it was taken on the “6th day festival” to a mantapa in that place)Lastly an epigraph dated 1661 registers a gift of money as poliyuttu to thetemple treasury by a private person, potturaja Venganan, son of TirumalaiNayakkar of Nandakula gotra for the 6th day festival of Adibrahmotsavaand for other specified provisions for the god.51 (175 of 1951-52)

The Activities of the Christian Missionaries

The celebrated Roman Catholic missionary, Robert de Nobili, madeMadurai the centre of his activities in 1606. In spite of his calling himself aRoman brahmin and his novel methods aimed at bringing about a change ofheart among the natives from within he had to face opposition from therulers and the orthodox Hindus. He quitted Madurai in 1623 and came toThiruchirapalli in 1627 after staying for brief periods in Satyamangalam andSalame. In the latter year he organised a mission in Tiruccirappali.52(Sathyanathier. The Nayaks of Madura, pp.261-71) Here too he had toface opposition and persecution. In 1638-39 all the missionaries inThiruchirapalli were arrested and imprisoned, De Nobili sought, in 1644, aninterview with Tirumala Nayak and obtained from him a promise of immunityfrom the prosecuting activities of his subordinate governors. In pursuance ofhis promise the Nayak issued orders to the local governors not to interferewith the missionaries and their work. The order, however, was disobeyedhere and there.

The two fathers of Thiruchirapalli who distinguished themselves duringthis period were Balthazar de Costa and Alvarez. They worked mainly amongthe lower strata of Hindu society like the Pariahs. When a terrible famineswept over this town in 1646-47 Alvarez stationed himself amid thedepressed classes and mitigated their sufferings by giving treatment topatients coming from the neighbourhood of Thiruchirapalli. Such acts ofhumanity attracted men of high rank, many of whom joined the creed of

Alvarez and gave material aid to him. With the funds thus acquired Alvarezbuilt two churches for the high castes, one in Thiruchirapalli and the other inthe vicinity of Srirangam. The erection of the latter brought retribution toAlvarez immediately. There was a great uproar among the Hindus. Somesoldiers captured Alvarez and took him before the governor ofThiruchirapalli, who imprisoned him and his followers. A heavy ranson wasclaimed for his release, which could not be paid as the missionaries werepoor and destitute. The governor became indignant and expelled Alvarez outof Thiruchirapalli. De Costa, who was then working in Tanjore, proceeded toMadurai and sought the intervention of the Nayak, under whose ordersAlvarez regained his position in Thiruchirapalli.53 (IA. XLVI, pp.261-71)

COKKANATHA NAYAK (1659-1682) AND THE SRIRANGAM TEMPLE

Capital transferred back to Thiruchirapalli in 1665

Tirumala Nayak was succeeded by Muttu Virappa II, who ruled onlyfor a few months in 1659. The next ruler of Madurai was Cokkanatha. Hisreign of more than twenty years was marked by wars and internaldisturbances, which were often accompanied by famine and pestilence. TheJesuit missionaries, in their letters written from Thiruchirapalli, Madurai andother places, give lurid accounts of the disturbances and the consequentmisery spread throughout the countryside.54 (The Nayaks of Madura,op.cit., pp.274-76, 284-85, etc.) The phantom of the Vijayanagar empirehad disappeared. The feud between the Nayaks of Madurai and Tanjorecontinued. The Sultans of Bijapur and Golconda were sending their armiessouthward in the wake of the disappearance of the Hindu imperial power.The Muslims had captured Vellore and a few places belonging to the Nayaksof Madurai, Gingee and Tanjore. As Thiruchirapalli lay on the high road tothe south the strategic and military importance of its rock-fort as a meansof defence was quickly realised by Cokkanatha, who transferred the capitalback to Thiruchirapalli in 1665. In effecting the transfer he seems to havedisplayed too much and undeserved enthusiasm. According to the evidence ofthe Jesuit fathers he dismantled portions of the magnificent palace, whichTirumala Nayak had recently erected for himself in Thiruchirapalli.55 (Ibid.,pp.278-79)

The first years of Cokkanatha’s rule from Thiruchirapalli, appear tohave been not only peaceful but trumphant. For one thing the Jesuit letterscovering the period 1667-1672 are not to be had. The native chroniclesdescribe a victorious war which Cokkanatha waged (c.1673) against theNayak of Tanjore, Vijayaraghava, because the latter refused to give his

Nayak of Tanjore, Vijayaraghava, because the latter refused to give his

daughter in marriage to him. Tanjore was taken and his foster brotherAlagiri Nayaka was appointed governor. On the eve of surrenderVijayaraghava blew up the royal harem and died fighting. His partisans,however, appealed to the sultan of Bijapur on behalf of Cengamaladas, saidto be a grandson of the late king, who had escaped the calamity. The sultanof Bijapur sent his troops under the Mahiatta general Venkoji alias Ekoji toback Cengamaladas. These events ultimately resulted in the Mahrattaoccupation of Tanjore (1675) and introduced a new factor in South Indianpolitics. Sivaji, undertook his famous Carnatic expedition in 1677 andoccupied Vellore, Gingee and other places Cokkanatha was beset with serioustroubles from now on. Though the Mahrattas did not attack Thiruchirapallihas internal foes carried on intrigues with them to gain personal advantages.The king of Mysore added to the troubles of Cokkanatha by sending hisarmies, which made large in roads into his kingdom. Due to his failures,diplomatic and otherwise, his own nobles deposed him and enthroned hisyounger brother, Muttu Alakadri, in 1678. The new king was a weakling. Hewas captured and imprisoned the very next year by Rustum Khan, a Muslimadventurer and a former cavalry officer of Cokkanatha. The Mysore armynow laid siege to Thiruchirapalli and Rustum Khan failed to make anyimpression on the besiegers. The nobles of the court grew tired of RustumKhan’s misrule and captured and killed him in 1682 with the help of troopssupplied by the Setupati of Ramnad. Cokkanatha was now freed and restoredto his former kingship. At his instance the Mahrattas defeated and drovethe Mysoreans out of the Madurai kingdom but occupied whatever theyconqured and finally laid siege to Thiruchirapalli. Thoroughly broken down inmind and body Cokkanatha died within a year following his restoration.

A resume of the above events was given just to show that neitherthese events not their social and economic consequences can even vaguely beinterred from either the fairly numerous inscriptions of Cokkanatha in theSrirangam temple or the account of the Koil-Olugu bearing on his building andpatronising activities. It has to be assumed that these belong to the earlierpart of his reign from Thiruchirapalli i.e., A.D.1665-1675, in other wordsbefore the loss of Tanjore to the Mahrattas. This is confirmed by thechronology of Cokkanatha’s inscriptions in the Srirangam temple. The latteras well as the account in the Olugu certainly counter the impression offailure, darkness and misery created by a reading of the Jesuit letters ofthe period.

Inscriptions in the Srirangam temple belonging to the Period of Cokkanatha

From the inscriptions we know that some officers of state as well asthe king made donations to the temple. Of these the earliest is dated1666.56 (109 of 1937-38). It records the grant of a village,Hiranyamangalam by Visvanatha Nayakkan Cokkanatha Nayakkan to theSrirangam temple for offerings, etc., to the god on the sixth day of theBhupatirayan festival, when the deity was taken to the sixteen pillaredmantapa built by Narayana, son of Srestalur Krisnaiyangar, in the garden tothe west of the Thousand pillared mantapa. The village was left in charge ofthis builder. Another inscription of the same year registers a gift of moneyby Muddirai Raman, son of Alagiya Singar, a satada Srivaisnava of theSrivatsa gotra for providing offerings to the God, when H halted in themantapa to the north of the Tiruvali-alvan, (Cakrattalvar) shrine.56a (61 of1938-39) The order was issued in the time of Cinnatambi Mudaliar the vasalprathani of Cokkanatha Nayak. The next inscription dated 1669 registers agift of land in Umayapuram and Pirappangudi by Alagiri Nayaka, son ofCennama Nayaka, for offerings and worship to the god on the second day ofthe Bhupatirayan festival when the deity was taken to the Vitthalarajarmantapa.57 (110 of 1937-38) The donor may be identified with Alagiri, thefoster brother of Cokkanatha. The next inscription dated in 1671 registersgift of land in Kutapara village in Ko-nadu by Basavappa Nayudu, son ofJangama Nayaka of the Kasyapa gotra for offerings and worship to the godon the eighth day of a festival instituted by Cokkanatha, when He was takenin procession to the Vasantavilasa mantapa in the Nacciyar toppu.58 (108 of1937-38) Another inscription dated in the same year records gift of land tothe (Ranganatha) temple by Pradhani codi-Alakadri, son of Kapa-Nayaka andgrandson of Codi Alakadri Nayaka.59 (103 of 1937-38)

A copper plate inscription of Cokkanatha dated in S.1595, Pramadi(A.d.1673), the year of his triumphant conquest of Tanjore, records his giftto the Srirangam temple of 96 villages mentioned by name, situated oneither bank of the Kaveri. This may be regarded as a confirmatory deedrather than a gift of new villages.59a (This inscription appears as anAppendix to the Uttamanambivamsa prabavam published byS.Narasimhacaryar of Srirangam, said to belong to the Uttamanambi family.(Hoe & Co., Madras, 1912) The next two inscriptions are dated in 1674 andrefer to the construction of the Gopalakrishna shrine by a certain ChinnaBommaya Naidu or Nayaka of Madurai.60 (102 and 104 of 1937-38, pt.II,para 76.) One registers the gift of a village, Olaikkudi, for offerings andworship to the image of the god, Astabhuja Gopalakrisna, consecrated in theshrine built by him between those of Curattalvan and Vittahae vara. Theother registers a further gift of land by the same chief for offerings and

other registers a further gift of land by the same chief for offerings and

worship to god Ranganatha while halting before the shrine of Gopalakrisna.Another inscription under the same date registers gift of a village byKesaviraju, son of Ganaparaju and grandson of Venkatappa of the Srivatsagotra for offerings and worship to the god Sriranganatha; and another villagenamed Manjapuru for the worship of the image of Varadaraja and for themaintenance of a feeding house (Ramanuja kutam).61 (105 of 1938-39)

Muddu (Muthu) Alakadri or Muddulinga Nayak, the younger brother ofCokkanatha, who was made king during 1678-79 appears as the donor in twoinscriptions in the Srirangam temple. One registers his gift of ornaments andprovisions for offerings and worship at the request of his teacher AcaryaVadhulai Cudamani. The other, dated in 1680, records his gift of a kancukaor vest inlaid with precious stones for God Ranganatha.62 (27 and 31 of1938-39; p.II para 67) A Telugu copper plate record from the Raghavendraswami matha of Nanjagud, dated in S.1602 (Siddharti), A.D.1680, says theMuddalagadri Nayaka made a grant, on the bank of the Candrapuskarani inRangaksetra, of a village on the bank of the Tamraarni in Srivaikuntam Taluk(Tinnevelly district) and a stone building to the west of the southern gopurain the Citra street of Srirangam to the Raghupati treasury of Yogindra-tirta-sripada-Odeyar, the son of Raghavendra-tirta Sripada-Odeyar.63(Mysore Archaeological Report, 1917, para 138; summary in Sathyanathier,The Nayaks of Madura, p.360; also KO., p.191) An inscription dated in thesame year (1680) registers a gift of land, by purchase, by Vadhula Desikarfor offerings to God Ranganatha on several occassions, including the day onthe which He was taken in procession to Kottai-Cennama Nayakkanmantapam.64 (1 of 1936-37) The donor was the Acarya of the Nayaks ofthis period. Cennama Nayakkan, the builder of a mantapa, was perhaps thesame as the father of Alagiri Nayaka. The last day of the series is dated1681.65 (Rangacarya, Topographical List, III.p.1571-No.492 H.) Thisstates that Sriranganarayana Jiyar and other sthanikas of all kottus orgroups of temple servants gave a quarters veli of land for offerings to thegod.

It is known from an undated Telugu inscription in the Srirangam templethat certain epigraphs relating to the endowments made by CokkanathaNayaka and Mangammagaru (his queen), having been removed by somemiscreants, they were re-engraved and kept on the east side of theTiruvannaligai at the instance of the servants of the temple.66 (1 of 1936-37) Obviously these have not seen the light of day for the epigraphs ofCokkanatha examined earlier are those found on the walls of the Garudashrine in the third prakara of the temple.

shrine in the third prakara of the temple.

Royal patronage of Vaisnavism and the Srirangam Temple: The account inthe Olugu:

It was seen above that Tirumala Nayak was a Vaisnava to begin withbut later (c.1640) renounced the acaryaship of Pranadartihara Vaduladesikaror Annangar of Srirangam for his refusal to welcome Tatacarya ofKanchipuram and became a Saiva. From his seat in Madurai he began topatronise in a significant manner its Saiva temples. Cokkanatha too, asindicated by his name was a Saiva to begin with. His conversion to Vaisnavismcame about, according to the Olugu in the following manner. Obviouslyencouraged by royal patronage an Advaittin called Vajrangi was preachingSaivism in Srirangam. The Stalattar of the temple invited Srinivasa Desikarto controvert his preachings. With Muttu Alakadri, Acyutappa, Krisnappaand Vallappa, the four brothers of Cokkanatha as mediators, a debatelasting 44 days took place between Srinivasadesikar and Vajrangi in thegarden of Paksiraja, opposite to the Garuda shrine in the Srirangamtemple.67 (Alagiri Nayaka, the foster brother of Cokkanatha, and MuttuAlakadri, his young brother, as known to the Jesuit letters. The Olugu,here, mentions three others besides Alakadri.) With their Saivite learningthe mediators tried to favour the Advaitin but failed in their attempt. Oninquiries they came to know that the ancestors of Srinivasa Desikar werethe spiritual preceptors of their they renounced Saivism and sought spiritualguidance at the feet of the Vaisnava Acarya, who was no other than, thegrandson of Annangar, descended from the line of Mudaliandan.68 (K.O.,p.188) Sometime later Cokkanatha Nayak too sought spiritual guidance atthe feet of the Vaisnava Acarya. We have seen above that an inscriptionrefers to Muttu Alakadri as a sisya of Acarya Vadhulai Cudamai, i.e., thegem of the Acaryas of the Vadula gotra, to which the Kandadais belonged.69(The genealogy of the Kandadais, the family of Mudaliandan, is given in theAnnan Tirumaligai Olugu)

Under the guidance of his Acarya Cokkanatha laid out, in Srirangam,many streets and aagrahars. He also made a fresh endowment of fiftyvillages and made over these along with the already existing forty villages tothe temple treasury (the Sribhandara) accompanied by a deed of gift, whichwas referred to above. The Uttamanambi vamsaprabhavam says that thesewere what remained of the temple villages after the appropriations made bypolegars and other petty chieftains and that they were left under themanagement of Uttamanambi Pillai Srinivasacaryar. Srinivasa Desikar, saysthe Olugu, tried his best to rehabilitate the code of regulations drawn up byUdayavar, with regard to the temple routine, and see that they were given

Udayavar, with regard to the temple routine, and see that they were given

effect to. These regulations had either lapsed or well ill-executedconsiderably ever since the Rayas of Vijayanagar assumed direct control overthe temple administration. During the regime of Bhattar (Tirumalacaryar)and his men no attempt was made in this direction. As a descendent ofMudaliandan Srinivasa Desikar obtained all the honours due to Andan, i.e.,the office of Senapati durantara. “He collected together a hundred Vaisnavapreceptors and appointed them to do the services (connected with pujaetc.,) in the sanctum and from a congregation of Vedic reciters, under hisown direction. He also laid down that non-Vaisnavas need not enter thetemple.”70 (K.O., p.187-89) With the help of his royal pupil the Acaryarepaired many mantapas and prakaras and constructed a four pillaredmantapa for the performance of the evening rite (to guard the deity againstevil eyes), known as tiruvandikkappu, to the north of the Nan-mugan gopuraand endowed a few villages for a festival to be conducted therein. ThisTiruvandikkappu mantapa bears a life size Nayak image on one of its pillarsand this most probably represents Cokhanatha Nayak. The northerncounter-part of this mantapa, opposite the Nacciyar shrine, now called theKambar mantapam, is of the same size and style and may be attributed tothe same king.71 (This mantapa is supposed to commemorate the arangetralapproval by an academy of poets) of the Ramayana of Kambar. According topious tradition this work received its imprimateur in Srirangam before anassembly of pandits, persided over by Nathamuni, the first Vaisnava AcaryaKambar is said to have composed a centum on Nammalvar, called theSatakopar-andadi in order to please God Ranganatha before i.e, could obtainHis approval for the Ramayana. It is also said that Mettlagiyasingar, i.e,Narasimha on the neighbouring gopura, roared in approval of the work. Thestory is told in full in Vinodarasamanjari (1927), pp.147-220; see also SenTamil XXV, pp.308-9. Kamban is generally regarded as the contemporary ofOttakkuttan, who lived in the courts of the three successive Cola kings,Vikrama Cola, Kulottunga II and Rajaraja II (i.e. 1120-1163). Nathamunicame at least a century and a half earlier and hence, Kamban could not havebeen his contemporary. The view that Kamban was the author of theStakopar-andadi seems to be the origin and fertile source of their tradition;and it has to be said that this view is not accepted on all hands. Theauthorship of the andadi is a doubtful and disputed point) Of his own accordSrinivasa Desikar is said to have offered to the god jewels worth four lacsof pons, "“representing virtue, wealth, devotion and moksa”. He inspectedthe treasury and the store house of the temple and made a list of thevarious items. The voluables like the jewels, etc., were also examined andarranged in their proper places. He also recognised the accounts of the

temple under four categories as well as the tirta and other honours due tothe Acarya Purusas. The old system of preferential honours or graduationseems to have been given up in favour of equaity among these in the matterof worship. More tirta honours were also created in the temple, elevenaccording to the Olugu, to be distributed among the lesser dignitaries; whilegoing this due weightage appears to have been given to the Kandadais, i.e.,members belong to the family of Mudaliyanda.72 (KO., p.190) The Nacciyarshrine and the various mantapas in the outer prakaras are said to be thebenefications of Cokkanatha Nayak.73 (Ibid.)

Regarding Muttu Alakadri’s benefactions to the temple the Olugu saysthat after S.1600, (in the year Siddharti (A.D.1680) he gave to the god ofSrirangam a gold suryaprabha, a golden umbrella, a diamond shirt, a goldenthrone, a diamond crown, a diamond ornament for the head (turai) andinnumerable jewels and vessels. He is said to have made these benefactionsunder the guidance of Kumara Srinivasa Desikar, the son of his Acarya.74(Ibid.) The inscription referring to his gift of a kancuka or vest inlaid withprecious stones has been considered earlier.

A Case of Royal demand on the grain of the temple:

The chronicles of Srirangam, viz., the Uttamanambivamsa prabhavamand the Koil-Olugu refer to a zealous warden of the Srirangam temple whosacrificed his life as a protest against the royal appropriation of paddy fromthe temple store during a certain famine. The former says that when acertain Nayak was ruling the country there was a great famine all over theland and that the Nayak came to the temple with a view to take away allthe paddy from the temple store for palace use. Uttamanambi, the managerof the temple, refused to surrender any paddy. When the Nayak persistedhe measured out two marakkals of paddy saying ‘Tiruvarangam’ and‘Periakoil’, and on the third occasion plunged the marakkal into his stomachand measured out his own bowels and died a martyr in the cause of thetemple property. Thus overcome the Nayak abandoned his attempt andretired from the temple. The Vamsaprabhavam makes the Uttamanambiidentical with Kudal-Cakravala Nambi, who figures in the inscription ofGarudavahana Bhatta dated 1492, while the Olugu identifies him withCakraraya, the brother of Valiyadimai-nilaiyitta Uttamanambi (1407-50).75(KO., pp.155-56) The latter gives only a brief reference to the incidentsaying that Cakraraya “measured out his own bowels to the royal servantwho came to take paddy from the store house.” As the Jesuit accountsmake a prominent mention of famines caused by the frequent wars of the

reign of Cokkanatha and as the Vamsaprabhavam refers to a Nayak it isprobable that the incident took place during his reign; but it is surprisingthat the chronicles are so vague here while dealing with such a late period asthat of the Nayaks while they are more helpful elsewhere while relatingevents belonging to this or even an earlier period. If the incident is to beregarded as true, as it most likely is, - and similar instances of sacrifice oflife in protest against exactions by state officials have been noticed above,- the cause of the confusion in date seems to be in the name itself, viz.,Kudalsaravala Nainar, which may mean one who died by disembowellinghimself, being identified with Kudal Cakravala Nambi, or Nainar, whose dateis known from inscriptions, (14..2)76 (81 of 1936-37; pt.II, para 49; EI.XXIV., p.90 ff.) Hence the whole story need not be summarily rejected asa Euhemerian tale based on the misreading of Kudal (Madurai) as kudal(bowels) by some uninformed scribe or scribes.

THE SUCCEESSORS OF COKKANATHA NAYAK AND THEIRBENEFACTIONS (1682-1736)

Muttu Virappa III (1682-90)

Cokkanatha was succeeded by his son Ranga Krisna Muttu Virappa orMuttu Virappa III. The Koil-Olugu refers to his persecution of the family ofhis own Acarya. Misguided by one Tiruvenkatanatha Aiyan, an officer ofstate, he is said to have surrounded the house of his teacher, captured hissons and tortured them. One of his brothers was killed. The aged SrinivasaDesikar cursed him with a vile death in six months. In three months hecontracted ulcers all over his body and erelong he died Mangammal, hismother, was unable to bear the conduct of her son and is said to havequitted Thiruchirapalli on the pretext of a pilgrimage to Ramesvaram.77(KO., pp.191-192) It is not possible to verify this account of persecution.From a Jesuit letter it is known that this Nayak died of small pox.78(Sathiyanathier, The Nayaks of Madras, p.203) It is likely that thechronicler was magnifying some injustice or injury done to the preceptor bythe Nayak towards the close of his reign. That he was not hostile toVaisnavism of the Srirangam temple is shown by an inscription, dated inS.1613, Pramoduta, (A.D.1690) which refers to his restoration of certainrights and privileges in the Ranganatha temple to Kumara VenkataVaradacarya, son of Varadacarya and grandson of Acci SrirangaNarayanacarya of the Gargya gotra.79 (106 of 1937-38; para 77, pt.II.This record identically, extends the reign of this Nayak by one year.Following the Mryuntajaya manuscript Sathyanathier adopted 1689 for the

Following the Mryuntajaya manuscript Sathyanathier adopted 1689 for the

death of Muttu Virappa III. This record confirms the date given in theMaduraittalavaralaru. It mentions a certain Virapratapa Viradeva Maharayaruling at Ghanagiri (Penukonda) as sovereign Ghangiri had long ago ceased tobe the capital of the Rayas. Later records too dated in A.D.1706, etc.,particularly of Vijayaranga Cokkanatha (A.D.1706-1732), mention a certainsuzerain, a Raya ruling from Ghanagiri. This is a good example of historicalanachronism. The scribe appears to have blindly copied the invocatoryportions of former inscriptions. See IA XLVI-1917, p.239, note 96) Theserights had been in the enjoyment of the family from the time of Udayavar(Ramanuja) but had lapsed when some of his ancestors went to the north toparticipate in religious disputations with the Saivas. Ranga Krisna MuttaVirappa is said to have given to Kumara Venkata Varadacaryar a tirtadidanadharma sasanam, a deed regulating in what order and by whom tirtametc. were to be received. Two inscriptions speak of the gifts of his wife tothe temple. Muddammgaru, the queen of Sriranga Krisna MudduvirappaNayaka, according to these inscriptions, made a gift of a gold kirita to GodSriranganatha in the year Prabhava (1688) and in the next year, Vibhava(1689), she made a gift of two villages, Isanaikura and Nanakura, toSrinivasayya, evidently Srinivasa Desikar, for maintaining a Ramanujakutamand for worship and Sahasranamarcana of the god.80 (3 and 4 of 1936-37;pt.II, para 66)

PATRONAGE OF MANGAMMAL (1690-1706)

When Muttu Virappa III died his son Vijayaranga Cokkanatha was achild. Hence upto 1706 his mother, Mangammal, acted as regent. During thisperiod all the southern powers except Gingee, under Rajaram, the secondson of Sivaji, submitted to the Mughal imperial authority at Delhi. Followingthe example of the majority Mangammal paid tribute to Zulfikar Khan, thegeneral of Aurangzeb (1693) and maintained peace in the kingdom. The Tamiland Telugu chronicles of Madurai and the Carnatic are full of accounts of hergenerosity. She was an arch-benefactress. She gave gifts without distinctionof caste or community. A copper plate inscription of 1701 states that shemade a gift of some villages near Thiruchirapalli to a Muslim darga belongingto Baba Natta. She spent much money in laying out roads and erectingcatrams throughout her kingdom. Two inscriptions in the Srirangam templemention her as ruler. One dated 1696 states that Samavedi Ramaiyangaralias Sriranga Kalyana Ramanuja Ramaipangar, the nephew of Periya KalyanaRamanujasvamin, succeeded the latter in the supervision of the affairs ofthe Dasavatara temple in Srirangam.81 (100 of 1936-37) The other dated1697 records the conferment of the title Jiyar of Tirumangai Alvar Sannidhi

1697 records the conferment of the title Jiyar of Tirumangai Alvar Sannidhi

on a certain Ramaiyangar under the name Narayana Jiyar.82 (102 of 1936-37) His duties were specified; he was to supervise the general administrationof the shrine as also the periodical renovations of its various structures.

The Koil-Olugu gives details of Mangammal’s patronage of theSrirangam temple. As soon as she assumed power, says the Olugu, sherestored his previous status to Kumara Srinivasa Desikar, who had beenpersecuted by her son, Muttu Virappa III. Kumara Srinivasa Desikar wassucceeded by his son Sundararaja Vaduladesikar as the head of theSrikaryam of the Srirangam temple. The uncle of the latter, by nameSrirangaraja Vaduladesikar, usuerped the position of his nephew and as theAcarya of Mangammal became famous as Dorai Rangacaryar. With the helpof the queen Rangacaryar offered to Sriranganatha a huge pearl necklace, apendent, decorated with diamonds, and a diamond crown. In 1691 sheperformed the tulabhara ceremony and offered a huge treasure to the god.She further offered to the deity seven kinds of jewels for seven days ofthe week and many gold vessels for puja. Her preceptor is said to haveoffered, of his own accord, some jewels, a pearl ear-ornament and apalanquin for the Nacciyar.

VIJAYARANGA COKKANATHA NAYAK (1706-32) AND THESRIRANGAM TEMPLE

Vijayarangam Cokkanatha was first and last a religious minded andpious ruler. Fortunately for him there was no serious political disturbanceand there was hence no threat to his own security. He had the least carefor affairs temporal and, like Vijayaraghava of Tanjore, was alwaysconcerned with religious tours and extravagant gifts to temples. As a resultofficial corruption and oppression became rampant and disruptive tendenciesbegan to gather momentum. His reign, in other words, was marked by thepeace of decadence. The internal dissolution ultimately ended in 1736, aftera brief reign of four years of his wife Minakshi, in the establishment of thepower of Candasaheb over Thiruchirapalli and the disappearance of theNayak kingdom.

Ironically enough this rule of perhaps the weakest king ofThiruchirapalli and Madurai was the best from the standpoint of patronageof religion and religious institutions of the day, and the Srirangam templewas the greatest beneficiary. Local tradition regards him as the mostmagnificent benefactor of the temple belonging to modern times. As testifiedto by two Telugu labels engraved on two beams of the Dorai Mantapa, one inits northern wing, i.e., in the northern side of the second prakara and

its northern wing, i.e., in the northern side of the second prakara and

another in its western wing, i.e., in the western side of the same prakara,the Veda-parayana mantapa was built by him.83 (10 of 1936-37; pt.II,para 68. The epigraphical report refers to the prakara as third prakarawhereas it is second according to the arrangement followed here.) It isprobable that the Adyayanotsava was held here at this time and that it wascalled after Dorai Rangacaryar. A copper plate grant records his gift ofland for the conduct of a charity at Srirangam.84 (A.Rangacarya,Topographical list, III, p.1565, No.441) The Koil-Olugu says that SrinivasaDesikar, the son of Dorai Rangacaryar, offered to the god the followinggifts of Vijayaranga Cokkanatha: pancapatra and plates, one pot-like vessel,one tirtam container, an ornamental seat and various other paraphernalia ofworship, all in gold, and many jewels, a crown and diamond and gold shirts forthe Perumal and the Ubhaya Naccimar (i.e., the utsavaberas). He is said tohave constructed the Kannadiyarai (room of mirrors) and laid the processionpath beginning from the pavitra mantapa, i.e., the pavement of the westernwing of the second prakara, including the pillared corridor. With theintention of making a permanent endowment in his name he is said to haveoffered to the temple, with the permission of the Stalattar, eightcourtesans, who had practised dancing in his natakasala for services in thepresence of Ranganatha. He is also said to have made an endowment of10,000 gold pieces for a kudamural of 15 days of the nine devadasis whowere the hereditary servants of the temple.85 (Kudamurai refers to theright of a devadasi to carry pots of water in the divine presence) For boththe groups the Nayak assigned the west street and created a number ofrights, honours and services in the temple. Among other benefactions of theNayak are mentioned many gold pots and silver pots, 360 pitambaras for thekaisika dvadasi day and a 1,000 copper pots for the periya tirumanjanam(Sahasrakalasabhisekam). It is also suggested that he stayed in theSrirangam temple, probably at intervals, and supervised the conduct of thedaily fortnightly festivals and supplies therefor as well as the constructionof the mantapas, etc.86 (KO., pp.1945, The year Sarvajit mentioned inp.194 corresponds to S.1630 and not S.1619) The Durga Temple atSamayapuram (Kannanur) is attributed to him by local tradition.

Vijayaranga Cokkanatha was a scholar in Telugu. He was the author oftwo Telugu works Sriranga Mahatmya and Tulakaveri Mahatmya. He was apatron of the arts of music, dance and drama. In addition to the evidence ofthe Olugu, mentioned above, two inscriptions from Jambukesvaram, dated in1722 and 1723, refer to the donor of a certain mantapa in the Saivatemple there as Patakam Vaidyappayya, the son of Venkatesvarayya, aninstructor in the theatre-hall (natakasala-siksakam of Vijayaranga

instructor in the theatre-hall (natakasala-siksakam of Vijayaranga

Cokkanatha. The theatre, it is suggested, was attached to the royal palaceat Thiruchirapalli.87 (48 and 49 of 1937-38; pt.II, para 84) The two life-size statues of ivory of the Nayak and his consort (Minaksi) kept in thewestern promenade of the second enclosure of the temple are constantreminders of the great devotion which he had for Ranganatha. This groupincludes his adopted son, Vijayakumara and his wife. They appear to beapproaching the deity singing and dancing in great devotion. These were setup probably by Vijayaranga Cokkanatha himself or his son.

One more instance of the struggle for power among the stalattar ofthe temple is provided by the Olugu, which says that after S.1642(A.D.1720) Vedavyasa Bhattar Raghunathcaryar collected together a largenumber of people on the pretence of a religious gathering and “defied royalauthority by plundering the shops and closing the gates of the sample”. Theobject evidently was to discredit Kumara Srinivasa Desikar, who was baskingin the limelight of royal favour. After a siege of two months one IrulappaNayak captured him and took him to the king. Vijayaranga ordered therebels to be blinded. The preceptor of the king, in a spirit of generosity,interceded on behalf of Raghunathacaryar and saved him from the sentence.He was, however, made over to the Tondaimahar, i.e., the Raja ofPuddukottah, where he remained a prisoner, for twelve years.88 (KO.,pp.194-195)

QUEEN MINAKSI (1732-36): THE LAST OF THE NAYAKS

Vijayaranga Cokkanatha left no son and was succeeded by his queenMinaksi (1732-36). Bangaru Tirumala, the father of Vijayakumar, theadopted son of the late king, claimed the throne on behalf of his son andthis started a civil war. Chanda Saheb, a son-in-law of Dost Ali, the Nawabof Arcot, and who was ostensibly sent to collect tribute from Thiruchirapalliand Tanjore took advantage of the civil war, pretented to espouse the causeof Minaksi by taking an oath of friendship on the Guram and finallyimprisoned her in heir own palace in the fortress of Thiruchirapalli. Stung bythe indignities heaped upon her by Chanda’s men the unfortunate queen tookpoison and died in 1736.89 (Sathyanathier, The Nayaks of Madura, pp.233-34; IA XLVI pp.217-19 and 237-41)

According to an inscription dated in the cyclic year Ananda,corresponding to 1735, on the beam of a four pillared mantapa of polishedstone in the western side of the first prakara (Rajamahendran enclosure) itwas erected by Minaksi, the pattamahisi of Vijayaranga Cokkanatha.90 (101of 1938-39; pt.II, para 67; following the traditional order the Annual

of 1938-39; pt.II, para 67; following the traditional order the Annual

Report calls the prakara, where the inscription is found, the secondprakara).

NEXT PAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORY

Chapter 10FORTUNES DURING THE CARNATIC WARS AND AFTER

Chanda Saheb’s exactions on the Srirangam temple: 1736-40:

After occupying the fortress of Thiruchirapalli and strengthening itsdefences Canda Saheb turned against Bangaru Tirumala and his sonVijayakumara, who had taken refuge with the polegars of Sivaganga andRamnad. Alarmed at this Bangaru Tirumala fled to Tanjore, whose kingSayaji, in his turn was being pressed by the men of Canda Saheb to paytribute to the Nawab. The co-sufferers, Bangaru Tirumala and Sayaji, senta joint application for help to the Mahrattas at Poona. The latter, underthe inspiration of Baji Rao I (1720-40), the enterprising Peswa who hadinaugurated a forward policy, promptly answered the appeal and sent asizeable expeditionary force under Raghuji Bhonsle and Fateh Singh. DostAli, the Nawab of Arcot, who tried to intercept it, was defeated and killedin the battle of Damalcheru pass (1740). The Mahrattas then laid a siege toTiruccirapalli. Canda Saheb shut himself up in the fort and help up bravelyfor three months. The Mahrattas cut off all supply routes and defeatedrelief forces from Madurai and Dindigul. When food and provisions wereexhausted Canda Saheb capitulated. The Mahrattas plundered the regionround Thiruchirapalli before they retired to Satara with Canda Saheb andhis followers taken captive. Murari Rao Ghorpade, at the head of 14,000soldiers, was placed in command of Thiruchirapalli.

The Koil-Olugu says that during his three year’s rule Canda Sahebtried to attack Srirangam in the year Raktaksi and pressed the stalattar ofthe temple to pay tribute and that Parasara Bhattar, Vaduladesikar,Uttamanambi and others joined together and paid to Canda Saheb one lakhof rupees. Thus the temple was saved. This amount, it is said, was raisedwith the help of some jewels of the temple and by levying taxes like kanivari, manai vari and adtna vari in Uraiyur, The Olugu also refers to the“Mahratta invasion and rule for the next three year’s i.e., from 1740 to1743, and adds that neither during the occupation of Canda Saheb nor duringthe Mahratta occupation did the Perumal quit the Bhupalarayan, i.e., theseat of the procession images; in other words there was no occasion for thedeity being removed from the temple for purposes of security.1 (KO.,pp.195-96. The cyclic years mentioned viz., Plavanga for Canda Sahib’s

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a y

pp.195-96. The cyclic years mentioned viz., Plavanga for Canda Sahib’scapture of Thiruchirapalli and Raktaksi for his attempt to sack theSrirangam temple are wrong for they correspond to 1729 and 1745respectively) The Uttamanambi-vamsaprabhavam says that KorappattiMurari Rao (Murari Rao Ghorpade) granted 57 villages as jagir to theSrirangam temple, 14 to the Jambukesvaram temple and 9 to the temple ofTayumanaswami on the rock of Thiruchirapalli, and that he appointedSrirangacarya Uttamanambi as jagirdar of these 80 villages.2 (No.88 in theVamsaprabhavam) This was no fresh gift and was obviously in partialconfirmation of Cokkanatha Nayak’s grant.

THE TEMPLE DURING THE CARNATIC WARS 1743-63

The ambition of Canda Saheb led to a chain of events which engulfedpractically the whole of South India in a series of campaigns in which theforces of the Nawab of Arcot, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the English andthe French at Madras and Pondicherry respectively, the Mahrattas and therulers of Tanjore and Mysore took part. The nerve centre of the warfarethroughout was the fort of Thiruchirapalli overlooking the neighbourhoodincluding Srirangam and under such circumstances the temple and the townhad their own quota of sufferings. The Olugu prefaces the portion dealingwith this period by saying “In Sake 1650 (a mistake for S.1658)Karunatagam (i.e., the kingdom of the Carnatic meaning thereby the Nayakkingdom) collapsed and many rulerships arose. The temple services andfestivities were frittered away and the temple was faced with manydifficulties.”3 (KO., p.195) The contending forces used the Srirangamtemple as a fortress camp as its high walls and power gateways offeredprotection. The occupants were often tempted to raise money and provisionsby harassing the citizens and the temple authorities Devoid of any guard ormilitia of its own the stalattar of the temple had to purchase peaceeverytime at a heavy price. Occasionally luck favoured them and theoccupying force had to leave the temple in a huff without collecting money asit was seriously threatened by its enemy elsewhere.

Nizam-ul-Mulk’s expedition: 1743

In 1743 Asaf Jah Nizam-vl-Mulk marched from Haiderabad to theCarnatic with the definite intention of establishing his supremacy there.Taking advantage of a succession dispute in Arcot he imposed his ownnominee, Anwaruddin, a general in his army, as the Nawab of Arcot. MurariRao Georpade surrendered the fort of Thiruchirapalli when he threatened tolay siege to it and quitted the Carnatic. Thus the Nizam established easilyhis control over both Arcot and Thiruchirapalli. Till his death in 1748 he

exercised unquestioned authority over the territories of Haiderabad andArcot. During this period the Srirangam temple, it appears, did not suffereither from insecurity or from exactions. The Koil-Olugu says that when theNizam invaded the country with a great army all the stalattar met him inSamayapuram with their birudas, honoured him with tirtam and prasadam andbefriended his officers. “Thenceforwards the Muhammadans spread theirsway everywhere. Nevertheless the Perumal did not quit theBhupalarayan.”4 (Ibid., pp.196-97)

The death of Asaf Jah in 1748 and the release of Canda Sahed fromthe prison of the Mahrattas the same year led to succession disputes boththe Haiderabad and Arcot. As is well known to students of Indian HistoryCanda Saheb formed an alliance with Muzaffar Jang, a grandson of Asaf Jahand a claimant to the throne of Haiderabad, the Dupleix, the Frenchgovernor of Pondicherry. After making preparations he advanced againstAnwaruddin. On 23 July 1749 the combined forces of the allies defeatedand killed Nawab Anwaruddin in the battle of Ambur. Muzaffar Jang easilyoccupied Arcot but the fortress of Thiruchirapalli could not be captured as itwas stoutly defended by Muhammad Ali, the son of Anwaruddin. MohammadAli declared his loyalty to Nazir Jang, the son and successor of Asaf Jah,and appealed to the English at Madras for help, which was granted aftersome hesitation.

Nazir Jang received letters from Muhammad Ali explaining theactivities of his rival Muzaffar Jang, in the Carnatic. With a large army,which included Mahratta mercenaries under Murari Rao Ghorpade, hemarched to the Carnatic, won a victory over his enemies at Valudavur, nearGingee, took Muzaffar Jang prisoner and occupied Arcot (April 1750). But inthe battle of Gingee, fought a few months later, he was defeated andkilled. The exultant Muzaffar Jang, who proceeded to Haiderabadaccompanied by the French general Bussy to invest himself with the office ofNizam, was himself killed on the way by the Pathan Jagirdars of Kurnool andCuddapah. Acting on his own discretion Bussy proclaimed Salabat Jang, abrother of Nazir Jang, Nizam.

The Siege of Thiruchirapalli

Successive occupation of Srirangam by the English and the French andtheir evacaution 1751.

Canda Saheb was now free to settle issues with Muhammad Ali, whohad shut himself up in the fort of Thiruchirapalli and taken every precaution

to withstand a prolonged siege. With a sizable army, he left Arcot, subduedall Jagirdars who still owed allegiance to Muhammad Ali and finally laid siegeto the impregnable rock fort of Thiruchirapalli. Muhammad Ali sent urgentappeals for help to the English at Madras and Cuddalore and in February andApril 1751 contingents of European and Indian troops under captions Daltonand Gingen and Liue tenant Clive took the field against the forces of CandaSaheb and his French allies operating outside Tiruccirappali. They werejoined by the troops despatched by Muhammad Ali. Canda Saheb now led hisforces against these, but suffered a reverse at Vridhacalam. AtValikandapurm, however, he won a victory. Here the infantry and cavalry ofMuhammad Ali took such a fright of Canda Saheb’s army that they struck aprecipitate retreat, which did not stop despite the efforts of the Englishgenerals till they reached the walls of the Thiruchirapalli fort. The Englishgenerals rallied together a part of the fleeing army and camped at Uttatur,about 25 miles north of Thiruchirapalli. Before Canda Saheb reached thesame place, however, the generals, fearing that their enemy might try tointercept the road between their camp and Thiruchirapalli, preferred toretreat and quietly decamped from Uttatur. After a continuous march of 18hours they reached Biksandarkoil on the northern bank of the Coleroon. Hereit was first proposed to make a stand, but later orders were issued to thewhole army to cross over the Coleroon to the island of Srirangam, with theview that the seven walled shrine at Srirangam offered better means ofsecurity than Biksandarkoil. The English troops and those of the Nawabentered the Srirangam temple and were admitted by the priests with greatreluctance into the three outer enclosures, which provided more room thanwas required, and with earnest solicitations imploring them not to carry thestain of their pollution nearer the sanctum. Here they had no fear of theircommunication with Thiruchirapalli being cut because the enemy if he madeany such attempt came under direct cannon fire from the rock fort.Obsessed by a spirit of retreat as well as lack of confidence the army, erelong, decided to quit Srirangam and take shelter behind the walls ofThiruchirapalli justifying themselves at the same time by a suspicion that theouter wall of the temple was in a state of dilapidation and by the thoughthat the extent of the shrine was too big to be defended.

No sooner the Nawab’s army evacuated Srirangam than the army ofCanda Saheb and the French, who followed them, occupied it. Koviladi, a mudfort situated at the eastern extremity of the Srirangam island was notabandoned by the Nawab’s troops during the retreat to Thiruchirapalli and itwas manned by a small contingent. Canda Saheb stormed this fort and drovethe defenders across the Kaveri, many of whom, even while they were

wading through it, were hotly pursued and killed. Against his expectationsCaptain Gingen’s attempt to rescue them under cover of fire fromThiruchirapalli proved futile. Encouraged by this action Canda Saheb, withoutany more delay, crossed the Kaveri, leaving a small garrison in Srirangam,and encamped with the rest of his army outside the eastern gate ofThiruchirapalli.

Canda Saheb now concentrated all his attention on the blockade, andsupplies to the beleaguered garrison became difficult. At the suggestion ofMuhammad Ali and with the approval of the English governor, Saunders, Cliveeffected the celebrated diversion to Arcot (August 1751).5 (TuzakiWulajahi by Burhan Ibn Hassan, translated and edited by Muhammad HussainNainar, (University of Madras 1946), Vol.II, pp.87-90) His capture ofArcot, however, did not materially affect the siege of Thiruchirapalli. TheFrench mounted two 18 pounders on a rock, which came to be known as theFrench rock, about a mile south-east of Thiruchirapalli and also erected abattery of two guns on the island of Srirangam. The guns on the French rockand in Srirangam were too distant to make any impression on the defences ofthe rock-fort, and they were utilised mainly to cut off communications withthe fort from the south and the north.

The French and Canda Saheb shut in Srirangam (March-June 1752)

Muhammad Ali was growing desperate with his revenues and suppliesrunning short. While his English ally and protector within the fort, CaptainGingen, was prone to rest content with the policy of preserving his menhoping that the enemy would soon fatigue his troops and exhaust hisammunition. Taking the initiative for a second time he appealed to the kingof Mysore (Cikka Krisnaraja 1734-66) for help. The effect which thisappeal had clearly shows that the affairs of Thiruchirapalli were beingcarefully watched by the neighbouring powers. A contingent of the Mysorearmy under the command of Nandi Raja (Nanjaraja) immediately marched tothe relief of Thiruchirapalli. On the way it was joined by the Mahrattasunder Murari Rao, who had been waiting for a vourable opportunity torecover Thiruchirapalli, after he had surrendered it to Asaf Jah in 1743.The English were now prepared to send reinforcements and help MuhammadAli more effectively. Under cover of a continuous fire maintained by CaptainsCope and Dalton the Mysore army and the Mahrattas numbering 12,000horse and 8,000 foot reached the fort on 6 February 1752. This junctioninduced the Raja of Tanjore to contribute 3,000 horse and 2,000 foottowards the relief of Thiruchirapalli. This force was commanded by Manaji.

Some of the polegars also sent reinforcements. Thus the army of MuhammadAli suddenly swelled to 20,000 cavalry and an equal number of foot-soldeirswhile that of Canda Saheb numbered 15,000 horse and 20,000 foot.6(Robert Orme, Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan, Vol.1, p.208)In the meanwhile an English reinforcement under Major Lawrence and CaptionClive, consisting of 400 European troops and 1,100 Indian sepoys, with eightfield pieces, left Fort St.David for Thiruchirapalli. A French contingentunder Jacques Law proceeded, under the command of Dupleix, to interceptthe English force and a hotly contested battle was fought near the GoldenRock, three miles south of Thiruchirapalli, in which both parties made fulluse of their cannon. The French were defeated and the contingent sent byCanda Saheb routed. Jacques Law was so much alarmed by this defeat thathe immediately decided to withdraw the entire force from Thiruchirapalli andtake refuge in the temples in the island of Srirangam. Canda Sahebprotested against his move but had to agree. Law quartered his troops inthe Jambukesvaram temple while those of Canda Saheb found shelter insidethe walls of the Srirangam temple.

Major Lawrence, who wanted to follow up his victory, conceived thebold plan of attacking the enemy from the rear and with this intention hesent a body of 300 Europeans, 700 sepoys and 3,000 Mahrattas with twobattering cannons and six field pieces under the command of Clive to thenorth of the Coleroon on 6 April 1752. To conceal their march the armytook a circuitous route; it crossed the rivers, Kaveri and Coleroon, threemiles east of Jambukesvaram and reached Samayapuram (Kannanur) the nextday. The two temples in that village, i.e., those of Bhojisvara (Postesvara)and Sellaji, were occupied and fortified. When Dupleix came to understandthe plight of his army, which was about to be hemmed in between the twoallied forces at Thiruchirapalli and Samayapuram, he sent 120 Europeans and500 sepoys with four field pieces under D’Auteuil to reinforce the Frencharmy on the island of Srirangam. Clive tried to intercept this force andprevent the junction of D'A’teuil with Jacques Law in Srirangam but theformer cautiously withdrew. In the confusion of a night engagement inSamayapuram Clive was actually captured by a body of Frenchmendespatched by Law but his extraordinary pluck and presence of mind came tohis rescue and he escaped by speaking French and acting as a Frenchsoldier.7 (For full details, Ibid., pp.222-25) In the morning the Frenchwere overpowered and put to rout. The Mahrattas under Innis Khan, atrusted general of Murari Rao, pursued them and out of the 700 soldiers inflight, it is said, not one was left alive. D’Auteuil, who had withdrawn toUttatur, was defeated and put to flight by Dalton, who advanced north from

Thiruchirapalli. Clive too proceeded against another French post atBiksandarkoil and stormed it. With this the main line of communication withthe beleaguered gerrison in Srirangam and Jambukesvaram was effectivelycut off. Writing in his dairy under date 30 May 1752 Ananda Ranga Pillai,the well known dubash and courtier of Dupleix, states: “Today I heard thefollowing news. Of the troops at Srirangam with Canda Saheb, M.Law, etc.,only 300 troopers have received any pay for the last six months; the resthave had no money to live on and have suffered much by the enemy’sblockade….. They intended to have destroyed the Srirangam temple just asthey destroyed the Jambukesvaram temple; but the temple people saved itfor the present by giving them 60,000 rupees and the grain stored there.No one knows what will be done. They have paddy and rice for a month, butcannot get salt or other provisions. The Cauvery and the Coleroon are full ofwater ……..”7a (Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai (ed. By Dodwell, published bythe Madras Government 1922, vol.VIII, p.103.) Destruction of theJambukesavan temple perhaps refers to its spoliation)

The Execution of Canda Saheb:

Realising that Canda Saheb and the French were effectively blockadedin the island of Srirangam Manaji, the Tanjore general, made bold to crossthe river Kaveri and at once succeeded in wresting Koviladi from the French.The soldiers of Canda Saheb lost heart and they began, one by one, todesert their master. 2,000 of his best horses and 1,500 sepoys leftSrirangam and joined Clive at Samayapuram; some joined the Mysore army inThiruchirapalli and some others like the Marawas returned to their homes.Only 2,000 horses and 3,000 foot remained with Canda Saheb in Srirangam;among the foot, there was a body of 1,000 Rajaputs, who zealouslydefended the inner shrines of the Srirangam temple against all intruders.This helped the pujas and festive rituals to be performed as usual.

Jacques Law in Jambukesvaram was eagerly expecting the arrival ofrelief forces under D’Auteuil. The latter was actually rehabilitating his armyat Valikandapuram when Clive with a company of 100 Europeans, 1,000sepoys and 2,000 Mahrattas and six field pieces advanced against him.D’Auteuil once again tried to withdraw but his men were hotly pursued by theMahrattas and forced to fight. They were defeated and many wereimprisoned. The rest were disarmed and disbanded (9 June 1752). When Lawheard of this disaster he knew that everything was lost. To him thegreatest burden was the person of Canda Saheb, who was promptly informedof the urgency of taking steps to secure his own personal safety. Canda

Saheb was convinced that he could escape only with the connivance of one ofthe enemy confederates. He chose the Tanjore general Manaji to confide inbecause, according to Burhan Ibn Hasan, he planned to go to Pondicherry viaKarikal, the route of which lay through the territory of Tanjore.8 (TuzakiWalajahi, II, p.119-122) Law agreed with this proposal and opened secretnegotiation with Manaji. Some counsellors of Canda Saheb, however, stronglyprotested declaring that no enemy was to be trusted and offered to conducttheir master to Karikal by secret passages. “But”, says Burhan Ibn Hasan,“there was ready the retribution for the oath taken on the praiseworthyand the holy quran, in the course of his dealings with the Rani ofTrichinopoly; the retaliation for the blood unjustly shed, of Nawab Sirajud-Daula Anwarruddin Khan Bahadur, the Amir of the Carnatic and for themurder of Nawab Nazir Jang Shahid, the wazir and the nazim of theDeccan….” When he received the secret embassy on behalf of Canda Saheb,Manaji though that it was a great opportunity for him to distinguish himselfamong the confederates of Muhammad Alli and he promised to offer thefugitive prince a safe and secret conduct though his territories. Ere long anofficer of the Tanjore army came to Canda Saheb with a palanquin and askedhim to proceed to Manaji’s quarters where an escort was reported to bewaiting for him. When the palanquin reached Manaji’s tent Canda Saheb wasput in fetters and made a secure prisoner. Manaji immediately crossed theKaveri to Tiruccirapalli with his prize and communicated the joyful tidings toMuhammad Ali. The Nawab came out of the fort and honouraby received thecaptor of his enemy and granted to him the jagir of Kaviladi. The news ofthe capture of Canda Saheb very soon reached the Mysore and Mahrattagenerals, each of whom hastended to Manaji and demanded the person of thecaptive. Lawrence attempted to pacify the competitors and take CandaSaheb under his own protection but did not succeed. Nandiraja and MurariRao arrayed their troops to obtain, even at the cost of war, the haplesscaptive, whom they regard as the prize of all their labourers. Thesepreparations alarmed Manaji Rao, who thought it expedient to get rid of hisprisoner altogether. His Pathan executioner cut off his head, which wasimmediately sent to Muhammad Ali, who says Orme, “for the first time sawthe face of his rival” (12 June). Later it was tied to the neck of a cameland paraded five times round the walls of Thiruchirapalli, attended by100,000 spectators, insulting it with obscence and indecent invectives.9(Orme, Ibid., p.241)

In the meanwhile Law, having no alternative surrendered to the English(12 June 1752). About 750 Frenchmen and 2,000 sepoys came out of theJambukesvaram temple and threw down their arms. Similarly Canda Saheb’s

Jambukesvaram temple and threw down their arms. Similarly Canda Saheb’s

troops evacuated Srirangam and were suffered to pass without molestation,but the 1,000 Rajaputs, who were guarding the sanctity of the temple,refused to quit and “threatened their victors to cut them to pieces if theyoffered to enter within the third wall. The English in admiration of theirenthusiasm, promised to give them no occasion of offence.”10 (Ibid.)

The Occupation of the Srirangam temple by the Mysoreans and the French:July, 1752-May 1758

The muder of Canda Saheb and the surrender of the French inSrirangam did not terminate the siege of Thiruchirapalli, for hostilities, erelong, broke out between the Nawab and the Mysore army. When MajorLawrence was preparing to retire with his forces to fort St.David under thethought that the conflict had ended, infact, when he had withdrawn as faras Uttatur, it transpired that Muhammad Alid had, when he appealed to theking of Mysore for help, promised to cede the fort of Thiruchirapalli toMysore in return for military assistance and the Nandiraja meant to get thefort for himself. When the Nawab made this promise, which was so longkept a secret, he had no possession other than Thiruchirapalli and now,after four years, when he had triumphed over his enemies with the help ofthe English, the Mahrattas, the Mysoreans and others the fortress wasmade secure for him and nothing more. Nandiraja on the other hand, thoughtthat the Nawab was shortly going to inherit a large empire and refused towithdraw his demand. Dupleix’s drooping spirits revived and he began toencourage Nandiraja. The Nawab told Nandiraja that he would consider thequestion of surrendering Thiruchirapalli to him only after he had establishedhis authority over his dominions outside the fort and particularly over theprovince of Arcot; the Mysore general evinced great indignation at this andthreatened to take the fort by force. Ultimately it was agreed on bothsides to abide by the decision of Murari Rao, who offered to mediate.According to the mediation a respite of two months was granted toMuhammad Ali, during which he was expected to set right his own affairsand at the end surrender the fort to Nandiraja. As an immediate palliativethe Nawab made over to the Mysore general the revenues of the island ofSrirangam and a few other places and empowered him to collect themhimself. After making these arrangements the Nawab set out on 28 June1752 with Major Lawrence with a view to subjugate the Carnatic. CaptainDalton, with 200 Europeans and 1,500 sepoys, was left to guard the fortagainst any surprise attack by the Mysoreans or the Mahrattas, who hadcamped partly to the west of Thiruchirapalli and partly in Srirangam.Khairuddin Khan, the brother-in-law of the Nawab was appointed regent.

After the Nawab left Thiruchirapalli Nandiraja tried many a time totake the fort by surprise, while scrupulously maintaining all outward forms offriendship, with the help of 700 Mysoreans who had been admitted insidethe fort as friends but all the attempts failed thanks to the vigilance ofDalton. The respite of two months came to a close. The Nawab had notreturned from his tour of Conquest, when Nandiraja demanded the surrenderof Thiruchirapalli. The regent refused the demand with contempt. TheMysorean now gave up all pretence of friendship and openly madepreparations for an assault. Dupleix immediately sent a French force to hishelp. The Nawab received news of these developments in his camp atTiruvadi (Tanjore district) and at once rushed to Thiruchirapalli.

Nandiraja knew that the capture of the rock-fort by open assaultfrom outside was next to impossibility. Hence he decided to withdraw toSrirangam and wait for a favourable opportunity. In the meanwhile he wasjoined by the French and the Mahrattas. Dalton decided to strike and on 23December 1752 he left the fort and crossed over to Srirangam, where hefound the enemy strongly entrenched within the walls of the Ranganathatemple. Considerable havoc was wrought among their advance guards, whohad pitched their tents outside the temple, but Dalton could not force hisway into the temple for want of a petard. The next day again Dalton madea sally across the river and took his stand in a great catram opposite to thesouthern gate of Srirangam. In the engagement that followed Daltonsuffered terribly and lost 50% of his soldiers. He struck a precipitateretreat to the fortress and spent his range upon the 700 Mysoreans whowere still suffered to remain within the walls of Thiruchirapalli by turningthem out.

Nandiraja now detached one half of his army and sent them across theriver to Thiruchirapalli with express instructions to intercept all convoys ofprovisions proceeding to the fortress-town. The Mysoreans cut off the nosesof the pedlars and other merchants who attempted to bring provisions intothe city. This was done so effectively that in a short time all the grainshops in Thiruchirapalli were closed down and the granaries in the fortbecame empty. On the receipt of an express message from Dalton MajorLawrence arrived in Thiruchirapalli from Fort St.David on 6 May 1753 with alarge convoy of provisions. A single sally of Major Lawrence into Srirangam on10 May convinced him that the enemy was strong. He quietly retreated tothe fort and began to concert measures to stock grains but his attemptwere far from successful.

Finally Nadiraja and the French numbering in all 450 Europeans, 1,500sepoys and 8,000 Mysore and Mahratta horse decided to quit Srirangam andcross over to Thiruchirapalli. Their policy was a block all transport ofprovisions so effectively as to force and defenders of the fort to come outand fight or surrender. With this view they occupied and garrisoned theGolden Rock and the Sugar Loaf Rock, south of the Thiruchirapalli fort, andbegan to harass the normal supply routes to effectively that MajorLawrence, who knew that there was no time for deliberation, marched outwith 500 Europeans, 2,000 sepoys, and only a hundred of the Nawab’shorse, who agreed to accompany him and in a pitched battle fought beneaththese rocks defeated the enemy and put them to rout. This victory gave themuch needed respite to the besieged city and a considerable amount of foodgrains was brought into the fortress. This, however, did not solve theproblem as the blockade was taken up again with vigour and the civilianinhabitants of the city, unable to get food and other provisions, began todesert it in batches to live in other places.

The Nawab and Lawrence now turned their efforts to drive the enemyfrom the neighbourhood of Thiruchirapalli back to Srirangam and for thispurpose obtained reinforcements from Fort St.David and Tanjore, whose kingwas prepared to back the cause of Muhammad Ali. As Major Lawrenceadvanced towards Thiruchirapalli with 170 Europeans and 300 sepoys fromSt.David and 3,000 horse and 2,000 match-locks from Tanjore under thecommand of Manaji. Nadiraja tried to intercept him, but was defeated againat the Golden Rock (7 August 1753). The reinforcements entered the fortwith a convoy of provisions; In September was fought the decisive battle.Major Lawrence led out his troops and attacked the enemy camp extendingfrom the Golden Rock to the Sugar Loaf Rock. The enemy suffered a totaldefeat and retreated in great hurry to the island of Srirangam abandoningmuch baggage and ammunition.

The plan of starving the fort into surrender by cutting off foodsupplies had thus proved ineffective. On the night of 27 November about600 Frenchmen crossed the river and made a daring attempt to take thefort by escalade. Placing the scaling ladders against the walls of the westerngate, known as Dalton’s battery, they climbed up the battery without makingalarm and bayonetted the sleeping guards, but some of them inadvertentlyfell into a deep pit left in the structures and their screams roused thenearest defenders. The ladders were pushed down; the French who werefiring confusedly in the darkness were imprisoned. About a 100, who triedthe experiment of leaping down 18 feet, suffered terribly and some lost

their lives.

The undaunted Nandiraja once more attempted to seduce somedefenders but a series of conspiracies followed by straggling actions yieldednothing. Under such circumstances Dupleix was recalled by the Frenchministry in April 1754. His policy was totally reversed by his successorGodeheu as the French and English ministries agreed to cease hostilities inIndia. Nandiraja hated the English for their help to the Nawab, the promisebreaker, and declared that if the Nawab and his whole family would comeand throw themselves at his feet, beg for mercy, and own themselvesbeggars he would be satisfied and withdraw. Exactly a year later he washimself recalled by the Raja of Mysore to face the dangers that werethreatening the borders of his kingdom. The Mahrattas and the army ofSalabat Jang, accompanied by Bussy, were marching to his frontiers todemand tribute, the former on their own account and the latter on behalf ofthe Mughal. In obedience to this command Nandiraja quitted Srirangam on 14April 1755 and marched towards Mysore leaving the island to the French.

Hostilities between the English and the French broke out in Europe in1756 with the outbreak of the Seven Year’s war. Count de Lally, the Frenchplenipotentiary, who reached India in 1758, made Madras and Fort St.Davidhis objectives and did not pay any attention to Thiruchirapalli. That this fortwas not his objective is proved by the fact that while he recalled, as a rule,one fourth of the French troops from all their outposts to assist him in hiscampaigns he summoned the entire garrison of Srirangam to quit the templeand join him at Cuddalore. The French accordingly quitted the temple on 17May 1758.

The Koil Olugu refers to the occupation of Srirangam and theharassment of its citizens by the Unal (Yavanas) of Puducceri (Pondicherry),i.e., the French. “The inhabitants of both the banks (i.e., the northernbank of the Kaveri and the southern bank of the coleroon) took refuge in thetemple and closed its gateways. The Unal however, entered the Citra streetand the Ultirai vidi (Uttara street), plundered the temple and werecontemplating to harass the whole population when Alagiyamanavala Perumal,taking pity on the people brought the sense of sympathy towards the ancientshrine and its helpless inhabitants in the mind of an aged Parangi i.e.,European) and, through him, in the minds of others of his class, and thussaved the temple. The men of Puducceri continued in Srirangam for twoyears troubling the people, but in the third year suffered heavy losses andfled”.11 (KO., p.197) The period of the three years of French occupation

mentioned by the Olugu, may be taken to refer to the period between March1752, when Jacques Law and Canda Saheb occupied the temple, and April1755 when Nandiraja evacuated it. Actually they stayed there for threeyears more. The occupying forces converted the three outer enclosures intoa military camp barricading the gateways and mounting guns on the walls. Thechronicle, however, is not aware of the service rendered by the contingentof 1,000 Rajaputs belonging to Canda Saheb’s army, who undertook uponthemselves the sacred duty of protecting the inner precincts. Ananda RangaPillai furnishes some interesting details of the oppression practised by theFrench on the inhabitants of Srirangam. Under date 23 June 1752 he notesin his Diary: “They say that M.Law will be much blamed after (Jamadar)Shaikh Hasan’s arrival; for his misconduct at Srirangam was indescribable.God smote them because He could no longer bear their injustice to men andwomen. Thus it was by their own evil deeds that the army was swallowed upand they themselves fell into the enemy’s hands but none knows what furtherpunishment will befall them, All that I hear will fill a hundred pages…..”12(Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, VIII, p.103. The alleged misconduct of Law,at Srirangam may refer to his spoliation of Jambukesvaram temple)

After the withdrawal of Nandiraja, i.e., when the French were in soleoccupation of Srirangam, they appear to have harassed the citizens againand indulged in gross misconduct. Under date 9 December 1755 AnandaRanga Pillai notes in his Diary. “The Srirangam Brahmanas report that theyhave received letters saying that (the commandant) M.Flacourt sent 50sepoys to the house of Achariar (whose name I do not know), and that thesemen seized and beat him, stole some money and ravished the women, so thatall classes of Brahmanas and others - 10,000 persons in all - assembledtogether, closed the temples of Srirangam and Jambukesvaram and mountedon the gopurams whereon M.Flacourt fled.” 13 (Ibid., p.404) Again underdate 14 December he writes, “the Srirangam Brahmanas presented apetition (to the governor M.Leyrit) that M.Flacourt at Srirangam had sentguards to carry off women from Nadamuni Achariyar’s house. The governorread this and gave it to M.Barthelemy, who also read it. I think they haveresolved to recall him.”14 (Ibid., pp.406-7)

Srirangam under the French again: November 1759 - February 1760

When the French evacuated the Srirangam temple in May 1758 it wasoccupied by a contingent of the Mysore army under the brother of HaidarAli advancing from Dindigul. The occupation of the Mysoreans was short livedfor no sooner the French left Srirangam than the English at Thiruchirapalli

made the first serious attempt to occupy it. Captain Gaillaud appointedJoseph Smith to repulse the Mysoreans from Srirangam. Smith took hispost in the Jambukesvaram temple and opened a bombardment uponSrirangam from two martars. The challenge was not taken and the samenight the Mysoreans decamped leaving considerable military stores andartillery and went back to Dindigul. The temple was occupied by the Englishand garrisoned with 500 sepoys.

Srirangam once again passed under the French Crillon, a commanderunder Lally, suddenly advanced against the shrine from Uttatur on 20November 1759. At that moment the temple was manned only by 300sepoys, 500 Kallans and a few Europeans. Crillon camped opposite thewestern gateway of the temple, which was strongly fortified. This gatewayhad been blocked by a partition wall, 20’ high, but this contained an openingin the middle. Hence the English dug a trench and erected a parapet in frontof this opening and mounted on the latter a few field pieces; but the heavycannon of the French demolished the partition wall and disabled the fieldpieces. Crillon’s troops forced their way in an mercilessly put to the swordthe defenders even after they had laid down their arms.15 (Orme, II,p.541) The French occupation of outposts like Srirangam however, dependedmainly upon the fortunes of Lally. After his woeful defeat at Wandiwash inJanuary 1760 Lally withdrew to Pondicherry where he made his last standagainst the English. He summoned all his troops between Valikandapuram andThiruchirapalli to join him under the severest penalties of disobedience. TheFrench, 450 Europeans and 1,200 sepoys, withdrew from Srirangam on thenight of 6 February 1760. Under date 27 November 1759 Ananda RangaPillai notes that M.Fumel (a mistake for Crillon) advanced from Uttatur andcaptured Srirangam. “Our troops seized Srirangam and plundered twostreets; but the Bahmans, Bairagis and Dasaries in the temple closed thegates and refused to open them, declaring that they would rather castthemselves down from the walls and perish than open them. Two streetswere plundered and women were ravished. M.Lally ordered a present of 10rupees(??) to be given to the Harakara, who brought the letter saying thatthe troops, had reached Srirangam.”16 (Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai XI,pp.442-43) The Olugu’s reference noted above, of the Unal entering theCitra and Uttara streets and plundering them, most probably refers toCrillon’s assault. The protests of the people are not mentioned by thechronicler, who, in his own way, talks of divine intervention.

The arangetral of the Ramanatakam of Arunacalakavirayar, 1772:

Arunacalakavirayar was a well-known Tamil poet of the 18th century.He composed an open in Tamil dealing with the story of the Ramayana calledthe Ramanatakam. This work is said to have received its imprimateur fromlearned pandits in his 60th year in the same place where the Ramayana ofKamban was approved by the academy of poets centuries ago, i.e., theKambar mantapam in the Srirangam temple. This tradition again shows, ashas often been adverted to above, that the life of the temple was notseriously affected by the political and other disturbances of the age.

Occupation of the temple by Haider and Tippu: 1781 and 1790:

Haider Naik, originally an officer of tae Mysore army, gradually roseto be faujdar of Dindigul. By 1759-60 he occupied the first rank in theMysore army. His usurpation of the throne was complete in 1761. Afterconsolidating his own position in the Mysore country Haider led twoexpeditions into the Carnatic, in 1767 and 1780-82. But for a few sporadicmilitary actions in the districts of Salem and North Arcot nothing substantialwas achieved in the course of the first expedition. The later expedition wasa devastating military raid and the region between Pondicherry and Pulicatwas sacked. His main target was Madras. Nevertheless in 1781 he closelyinvested the Thiruchirapalli fort and at a time when it seemed ready tosurrender, due to its unpreparedness to stand a siege, withdrew to thenorth to meet the forces of Eyre Coote. The defeat at Porto Novo in July1781 broke his power.

The Koil Olugu gives the correct date for Haider’s invasion. It saysthat in S.1703 (A.D.1781), in Ani of Plavanga, (a mistake for Plava) Haidermarched with a lakh of soldiers, occupied Tondaimandalam and Colamandalam,destroying the countryside, and surrounded Srirangam. An idea of the terrorstruck by his approach is provided by the chronicle which says, “A crore ofinhabitants could nor contain themselves in the temple”. Haider is said tohave quartered his troops in the temple for six days at the end of which hequitted it. A destruction of the temple was averted, it is said, through theinterventions of his Brahmana officers. Says the Olugu, “AlagiyamanavalaPerumal again intervened and acting as Samayyan, the letter bearer ofHaider, obtained a kavul or lease-deed from the latter, making overSrirangam to himself, through the chief accountant of Haider, who was aSrivaisnava, and thus saved the temple.”17 (KO., p.198)

After the death of Haider in 1782 Tippu, his son, assumed thesupreme command of the Mysore army. Having learnt a bitter lesson fromtheir own inactivity during the advance of Haider the English, under the

their own inactivity during the advance of Haider the English, under the

command of Lord Cornwallis, took the offensive against Tippu with a view toforestall his operations in the Carnatic. Towards the end of 1790 Tippu, bymeans of his dexterous and secret marches, by-passed General Meadows,who had been commissioned to keep the Sultan within the borders of theMysore country, and descended into the Carnatic with a view to carry thewar to the heart of the English dominions. By rapid marches he came toThiruchirapalli, threatened to storm the fort several times, but actually didnot lay siege to it. He crossed over to Srirangam and put the countryside tofire and sword. When Meadows learnt of Tippu’s descent into the Carnaticthrough the Toppur pass he quickly turned towards the east and on hisapproach Tippu decamped from Srirangam on 8 December 1790 andretreated in a northern direction burning and pillaging along his route.18(Hayavadana Roa, Mysore Gazetteer II, (iv) p.2589)

The Koil Olugu says that after S.1712 (A.D.1790), in the yearSadarana, Tippu Saheb, of the most cruel temperament, invaded theCarnatic with a huge army and spread desolation alround. He stationedhimself and his army in the temple for six days at the end of which heabandoned it. He is also said to have demanded a lakh of gold pieces fromthe Stalattar, viz., Srirangaraja Vaduladesikar, Rangacaryar and Bhattarfor the expenses of his army. This amount, we are told, was refused andbefore Tippu could wreak his vengeance upon the temple, he had to flee itfor his own safety. But the Olugu says that when the amount was refused,“Tippu became wild at which all the inhabitants though there was an end ofthem. Again Alagiyamanavalan interfered and, as a result, Tippu was pacifiedthrough laudatory addresses made by Srirangaraja Vaduladesikar.”19 (KO.,p.199)

The Olugu says that in the same year, Sadarana, i.e., 1790,Cinnayya Mudali came to the store house of the temple to take paddy forpalace use. This obviously means for the use of Muhammad Ali’s household.Srirangaraja Vaduladesikar and others, we are told, made huge protests atthe gateway of the storehouse and declared that they would sacrifice theirlives, at which the paddy was not taken, The Olugu adds that the Mudali didmany repairs to the walls and conducted an abhisheka for the god.20 (Ibid.)

The Assumption of direct control over the administration of the Carnatic bythe English (1801)

Muhammad Ali Walajah continued to rule as Nawab till 1795, in whichyear he died. He late conflicts with his enemies had clearly revealed thenominal character of his power. He owed his crown undoubtedly to the help

nominal character of his power. He owed his crown undoubtedly to the help

given to him by the English, who were rapidly destroying all resistance totheir military expansion. They were, however, loth to assume theresponsibility of government. They left it to the local chieftains, who wereno other than their own proteges. Their responsibility to the English ceasedwith the payment of a part of their revenue as subsidy. This sort ofgovernment, called the double government, marked the interval between thedown-fall of the native governments and the assumption of direct controlover the administration by the de facto power, viz., the English. Thatinterval was a period of maladministration and anarchy. Nawab Muhammad Alihad borrowed large sums of anarchy. Nawab Muhammad Ali had borrowedlarge sums of money from the English company at Madras and to pay offthese debts he borrowed indiscreetly from various private persons at ratesof interest as exhorbitant as 30 to 36%. Very soon the Nawab of Arcot’sdebts became a scandal and the creditors were granted assignments on therevenues of his districts. Sometimes slices of territory were also mortgagedto the creditors, who in their turn became petty Nawabs. Such proceedingswent on without check and revealed the effects of an anomalous doublegovernment, which were felt even more pognantly, in the Carnatic than inBengal under the dual system of Clive.

The Madras government was the biggest of the creditors of NawabWallajah. In December 1781 Lord Macartney, Governor of Madras,concluded a treaty with the Nawab by which the latter assigned five-sixthsof the revenues of the Carnatic to the Madras government keeping one sixthfor himself. Mr.Sullivan, Resident at Tanjore, was appointed superintendentof Assigned Revenues of ‘Trichinopoly’. Under his energetic supervison somesemblance of order was maintained in the Thiruchirapalli district for the timebeing. This (Check 21 (KO., 199-201 Translations and Summaries of theMackenzie Mss: 17-6-10 (Tamil), Section 7) arrangement was cancelled bythe Board of Directors in England in 1785 and on this count Macartneyresigned. It was revived in 1787 and more definitely in 1792. In the latteryear Lord Cornwallis concluded a treaty with Nawab Wallajah providing forassumption of control in periods of war. Anarchy in the land, however,continued unabated because the Nawab’s financial position showed no signs ofimprovement. Under such conditions Muhammad Ali died in 1795 and wassucceeded by his son Umtad-ul-Umra. Matters were brought to a crisis,when some letters were discovered, subsequent to the storming ofSeringapatnam (1799), implicating both Muhammad Ali and his son in atransonable correspondence with Tippu. In 1801 Umdat-ul-Umra died. Bythis time, Wellesley, the governor-general, had decided to end doublegovernment in the Carnatic. He caught this opportunity and on the very day

government in the Carnatic. He caught this opportunity and on the very day

of the death of the Nawab declared his intention to his successor, AliHusain, and asked whether he would accept a pension from the Englishcompany and renounce all claims to rule his kingdom. On his refusing it Azim-ud-Daula, a nephew of Umdat-ul-Umra, acquiesced in the terms offered bythe governor general. He was recognised as the Nawab. He signed anagreement on 31 July 1801 by which he renounced all authority over the ciland military government of the Carnatic and received a pension. In August1801 John Wallace, an English Collector took charge of the district ofThiruchirapalli.

THE NAWABS AND SRIRANGAM

From the Uttamanambi-vamsaprabhavam we come to know, asreferred to already that out of the 96 villages granted by Cokkanatha tothe Srirangam temple Murari Rao Ghorpade recognised 80, 57 of which heassigned to this temple, 14 to the Jambukesvaram temple and 9 to theTayumanaswamy temple. Anwaruddin Khan and his son Muhammad Alirecognised this arrangement and made over these villages as inam, toSrirangacarya Uttamanambi who was required to pay a nominal annualpeshkash of Rs.60,000. His son and successor was SrinivasacaryaUttamanambi, but as he was a minor the 80 villages were constituted into aseparate Taluk known as the temple Taluk and entrusted to an amildar, whowas to administer those villages on behalf of the minor. But before the wardattained majority the country passed from the control of the Nawab to thatof the English.

Dispute over tirta honours: The Nawab’s Decision in the case of Annangarvs.Rangacari, 1796

Towards the close of the 18th century a quarrel between twomembers of the same family (the family of Annan, i.e., the Kandadais) overthe tirta honours in the temple, which had been brewing for a long time,broke out with violence and disturbed the peaceful life of the temple. TheKoil Olugu traces the origin of the dispute, while one of the manuscripts ofthe Mackezie collection gives a copy of the order issued by Nawab Umdal-ul-Umra in 1796 after hearing the parties to the dispute and some witnesseswho possessed a knowledge of its background. The dispute goes back to theperiod of the Nayak queen. Mangammal (1691-1706), who patronized oneSrirangacarya Vaduladesikar, better known as Dorai Rangacaryar, who hadmanaged to usurp the position of the acarya of the ruler from his ownnephew (brother’s son). Sundararaja Vaduladesikar, from his own nephew(brother’s son). Sundararaja Vaduladesikar, the lineal descendant of

(brother’s son). Sundararaja Vaduladesikar, the lineal descendant of

Mudaliyandan and a grandson of Srinivasa Desikar of the Olugu and Acaryaof Cokkanatha Nayak (1659-82). The quarrel now was between AnnangarVaradacaryar, in the line of Sundararaja Vaduladesikar, and AvadanacettiRangacaryar, in the line of Dorai Rangacaryar. Referring to the cyclic yearPramadi (1793) the Olugu says, “The contemporary Annangar, who wasleading a bad life and who had stolen much of the temple property, wasdissatisfied with the honours of arulaypadu and tirtam done to him afterPeria Nambi as laid down by Manavala Mahamuni, and, impelled by his wealth,desired to occupy the seat of Vaduladesikar i.e., Rangacarya). He temptedthe ruler to effect the transfer with an offering Rs.5,000 but theMuhammadan king did not yield. Thus defeated in his purpose he began toaccuse Vaduladesikar, the Bandaris (i.e., treasures and storekeepers), theAryabhattal and others belonging to the Adina of Vaduladesikar of theftfrom the temple of property worth Rs.30,000 and kept them in custody.This created an uproar in the town.” The officers of Nawab Muhammad Alinow interfered, arrested Annangar and his men and demanded a large sum ofmoney as tribute from the temple. Gopala Rayar, the Diwan of the Nawab,it is said, restored peace in Srirangam and had the prisoners released afterobtaining on behalf of the Nawab a large ransom. After some time, however,when Gopala Rayar was no more Diwan, Annangar is said to have obtained onehalf of the Adina of Vaduladesikar by bribery and once again seized thetemple officials and kept them in custody and began to harass thesupporters of his enemy. For more than two years he was in power, and“during that time Annangar once announced to the public that none should stirout for a period of 5 nolis, during which time many lakhs of pons were stolenfrom the temple…” After some time, we are told, Gopala Rayar wasrestored to power and Vaduladesikar got back the rights and privileges ofhis Adina in their entirety. After this event Muhammad Ali died (13 October1975) and was succeeded by Umdat-ul-Umra who is called Nizam-ul-MulkBahadur both in the Olugu and the Mackenzie manuscript referred to above.On the appeal of Annangar the new Nawab separated one half of the Adinaof Vaduladesikar and assigned it to Annangar in Hijira 1211, i.e.,A.D.1796.22 (The Koil Olugu says that Imamulk first separated one half ofthe Adina of Vaduladesikar and gave it to Annangar and after more than twoyears Nizamulk restored the whole of the Adina to Vaduladesikar inKalayukti (1798). Four months after this Nizam-ul-Mulk is said to haverestored to Annangar one half of the Adina. It is clear that the Olugu’saccount is confused. It is just possible that Imamulk and Nizamulk were twoprinces of the family of the Nawab) With this decision Vaduladesikar wasdissatisfied, according to the Olugu, and he and Parasara Bhattar refrained

from going to the temple.

The copy of the Nawab’s decision is interesting and throws light on theinsistence on hereditary rights of precedence in receiving the holy tirtam inthe divine presence (tirta maryada) on the part of the Stalattar and theVaisnava Acaryas associated with the Srirangam temple. The question, inother words, was sought to be decided on the basis of the duration of theenjoyment of the right by the respective disputants. The witnesses deposedthat Rangacaryar enjoyed no tirta honours before the time of VijayarangaCokkanatha Nayak, when tirtam was received in the order of Bhattar.Jiyar, Perianambi and Annangar. The Nayak gave to Rangacaryar the rightto receive tirtam first along with Bhattar. This offended Annangar, whoresented his having to receive tirtam after the “new comer” (Rangacaryar).It was stated that Rangacaryar enjoyed his rights only from the days ofthe Nayak while Annangar had his tirta honours from the days ofMudaliyandan. The Nawab declared that Rangacaryar’s contention was wrong,but as he was receiving the maryada from the days of the Nayak hedecreed that the parties would receive tirta maryadas twice in a monthalternately. The order stated that they would enjoy rusumu (fees) andmirasu (rights) equally, half in half. Without any quarrel they will enjoy theirshares in tirtam for ever and look after their own business.” If any oneacted against the order he forfeited his rights.

This arrangement lasted only for five years. “In Ani of Dunmati”(1801), says the Olugu, “Nizamulk conducted a vigorous investigation withthe help of Arunachalam Pillai into the affairs of the shrine and found outthat Annangar had stolen 40 seers of gold and pealed the gold plates offthe tolukkiniyan, tiruvasi (parts of the divine vehicles) the bathing seat, etc.Araikktalai Singam Pillaiyappan, Bhandari Rangappan and Sattada Arangangave out that they had themselves given him those articles. In the presenceof the Nawab Annangar confused the crime, on which he was fined 1,200gold pagodas and exiled.”23 (KO., p.202) In Adi, i.e., the next month, theEnglish assumed the control of the temple and John Wallace, the Collector,quashed the Nawab’s judgement of 1796 and gave to VaduladesikarSrirangacaryar the mamul i.e., the customary right, that was in vogue fiveyears earlier.24 (145 of 1938-39; pt.II, para 74)

THE TEMPLE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE ENGLISH COLLECTOR THESETTLEMENT OF WALLACE

When Azim-ud-Daula assigned the Carnatic to the English in returnfor a pension in 1801, the temple-Taluk (i.e., the temple with its associate

for a pension in 1801, the temple-Taluk (i.e., the temple with its associate

shrines and its lands) passed under their immediate control. John Wallace,the first Collector of the district, took in hand, among other things, thequestion of the management of the Srirangam temple. He made detailedinvestigations into the income and expenditure of the temple andrecommended to the Madras government the payment of an annual sum ofRs.40,179 to the temple to meet the expenses of worship. The extraincome of the temple in the shape of votive offerings, etc., was to be builtinto a repairs fund. He also fixed the scale of fees payable by holders ofimportant offices in the temple (which carried with them certain rights andhonours). A little later the government’s allowance was reduced by aboutRs.1,500 and in 1813 (Fasli 1222) was fixed at Rs.35,000 by oneMr.Travers, the then collector of the district. Some of the offices came tobe auctioned and sold to the highest bidder but in 1828 this was given up infavour of Mr.Wallace’s settlement, familiarly known as the tittam. This wasan indirect recognition of the time honoured hereditary principle. Theinhabitants of Srirangam made loud complaints about the insufficiency of theannual allowance from the treasury but nothing was done to enhance it.

An inscription of Pachaiyappa Mudaliar dated 1842:

A Tamil inscription on a slab fixed near the Aryabhattal gateway anddated in S.1764 (A.D.1842) registers an order of the Hindu Sabha ofCennapattanam giving publicity to the benefaction of the well known SouthIndia Philanthropist of the last century, Pachaiyappa Mudaliar ofKanchipuram, for feeding Brahmana pilgrims in the Srirangam temple and forengaging a tutor for teaching English to Hindu boys at Srirangam.24 (?? Nofootnote) A similar inscription is also found at Jambukesvaram.25 (Nofootnote ??) Both refer to a deposit of a lakh of varahas in the governmenttreasury by order of the Honourable Supreme Court, who appointed theHindu Sabha at Chennapatnam (Madras) to allocate the interest accruingtherefrom for different charitable purposes. By this order the Ranganathatemple was allotted 240 varahas for feeding Brahmana pilgrims in thetemple, while the Jambukesvaram temple got 120 varahas for theardhajamakattalai (midnight offering) in the shrine of goddess Akhilandesvariin the temple. The monthly salary payable to the teacher to teach English tothe boys of Srirangam was stated to be 5 varahas.

Thyagaraja’s visit to the Srirangam temple:

The best known composer of devotional songs in South India, who livedin recent times, was Thyagaraja (1767-1847). In the later part of his lifehe visited the most important temples of South India. According to pious

he visited the most important temples of South India. According to pious

tradition he could not go near the procession image of Ranganatha on the dayof the horse-vehicle in a certain brahmotsava. He was elbowed out onaccount of the great crowd of people. Further he was not a Vaisnava andhence could not command any influence even though he was already well knownas a great musical composer. Suddenly the procession stopped as thebearers of the divine image could not move forward. People knew that thiswas due to the wrath of the god. Special pujas were performed and lampswere waved on the spot; raja dasis and Visnu dasis came and danced, all tono purpose. The visit of the saint Thyagaraja and his fruitless attempts tocome near the images were soon known to all. The priests rushed to him andimplored him to come near and pray to the god to resume the procession. Onhis appeal the bearers, it is said, were able to move forward. This incidentis echoed in his song commencing with the words Vinarada na manavi (won’tyou hear my appeal?). After this the Stalattar of the temple did him theunique honour of having darsan of the god in the sanctum alone, when he issaid to have sung the piece O Rangasayi.

NEXTPAGE

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.

HISTORYChapter 11

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION

In the history of the Srirangam temple as in the case ofmost other temples three powers enjoyed, more or less in succession,supreme authority, viz., the priests in charge of the pujas and festivals,the religious authority, i.e., the saints or acaryas who presided over themutts, and the secular authority or the king and his officers. In otherwords the secular authority ultimately triumphed. The priests werehereditary servants of the temple, who originally received their lands andassignments from a king or chieftain, including the right of transfer, on apermanent basis. They were not responsible to any officer of state. Theirduties were defined, regulated and supervised by the chief administrativeofficer of the temple who, in Srirangam was called the Senapati-durantara,himself an acarya or kovanavar. He exercised control not only over thepriests who performed pujas in the main and other shrines but the otherservants who had miscellaneous functions.

When Ramanuja succeeded Alavandar as the head of the Vaisnavadarsana and settled in Srirangam he assumed control over the administrationof the temple too and appointed Mudaliyandan, his own nephew and disciple,as Senapati durantara. This was inevitable because the control over thetemple gave added dignity to the religious head, particularly to a person ofthe eminence of Ramanuja. The temple was not only a place of worship but,from his days the venue of religious and philosophical discourses. Before thecoming of Ramanuja or Udayavar the prabandas of the Alvars were beingrecited in the temple and the puranas were being read and expounded by thechief priest and these seldom attracted the intellectuals. With the comingof the great teacher of visistadvaita many of his disciples were associatedwith the administration of the temple. As a result it was not only elaboratedand systematised but purified and rendered meaningful.

Section I

THE UDAYAVAR TITTAM

The Koil Olugu describes at length the duties of each of the tengroups of temple servants, supposed to have been fixed by Udayavar, wellknown as the tittam or arrangement (of Udayavar), and also refers to the

MAIN

MENU

E v e n t s o f T o d a y

changes to which they were subjected in due course. It is said that fromthe days of Tirumangai Alvar the temple servants were divided into fivegroups, viz., Kovanavar, Kodavar, Koduvaleduppar, Paduvar and Talaiyiduvarand that these were expanded into ten groups.1 (KO., pp.46-48. In theArulappadu of later times this five fold division was corrupted as Kovanavar,Kodavar, Koduppar, Eduppar, Paduvar and Talaiyiduvar) The word kovanavar(kaupinar) obviously refers to the ascetics or the vaisnava Acaryas, whofrom the days of Nathamuni had associated themselves, with the temple.Kovanavar, as forming one distinct group, is not mentioned under the schemeof Udayavar. Instead the word is used to refer to the family ofMudaliyandan, the Kandadais, who had a hereditary claim to the office ofthe Senapati durantara, from the days of Udayavar. Kodavar seems to be acorruption of kudavar or pot-bearers.1a (Ibid., pp.56-57) Koduvaledupparmeans sword-bearers, Paduvar singers and Talaiyiduvar providers of leaves.The Olugu does not describe this fivefold classification but merely mentions itas a thing of the past. The functions of the ten groups or pattukkottu, asfixed by Udayavar, are described below.

The temple chief and his deputies:

The chief superintendent of all the temple services was theSenapatidurantara, i.e., the responsible chief of the temple servants. Hewas also called the Srikaryam. He had complete control over all the templeservants - brahmana and sudra - and the power to punish or reward as thecase may be. Since all places were hereditary he had no power ofappointment or dismissal. With meticulous details the Olugu describes hisfunctions. “He would bathe himself and proceed to the foot of the flag-staffin the Aniyarangan courtyard and make his obeisance to it. While cominground along the kulasekharan enclosure he would inspect the kitchen and lookinto the containers, the usual provisions and (the items of) the cakes andcurries and other eatables appropriate to the occasion and assign the head-cook and the ekangis to their respective duties. Then he would inspect thecondiments stores and inquire into the state of ghee and such other liquidstuffs and assign the ekangis there to their appropriate duties ….. Near thestrong room adjoining the storehouse, in the Rajamahendran enclosure, hewould join the todavattituimaraiyor at the time of the prabanda recitations.From the box of perfumery he would direct his servant, an ekangi, to takesandal-paste, sandal, camphor, musk from Kashmir, collyrium, kasturi andtiruman, medicated camphor, etc., and hand them over to those brahmins(for puja purposes). He would also direct the ekangis to carry to theNacciyar shrine at the proper times sealed parcels of robes, vestments and

perfumery. Then entering the flower garden he would inspect the purplewater lily, the campak the jasmine, the white lotus and other varieties offlowers agreeable to the divine frame and assign them to their respectiveuses. Appointing the tirukkaragakkaiyar to their respective duties he wouldproceed to offer worship at the feet of Senaimudaliar. With his permissionhe would enter the Alagiyamanavalan tirumantapa and worship Jaya andVijaya. After this he would meet the Srivaisnava parivaras of the tengroups, the ekangis, the sattadamudalis and the vettirapanis and the tengroups of the sudra parijanas and ask them to do their respective dutieswith vigilance. Then entering the sanctum he would arrange for commencingthe puja.1b (89 of 1938-39) In the afternoon he once again took up his jobof supervision and stayed in the temple upto the offering of milk and kasayaor medicinal decoction to the Perumal in the night. “Thus after well lookinginto the temple administration he would return home with his wife begging, atthe Aryabhattal gateway, to be excused for sins of commission andomission.” On special festival days it was his duty to see that all the variousservices were efficiently done under the supervision of the respective headsof groups. For his services he was honoured in the divine presences withtutam thrice, sandal paste, garlands and betel. Parivattam or silk cloth wastied round his head as a special mark of honour and later untied. Theprasadams were taken and delivered to his house by the parijanas of theNacciyar shrine after the midday puja and offerings in the temple.

The Senapati-durantara was assisted by a few deputies. One was thePerum-ulturai-adikari or the Superintendent of the Inner Organisation. Hewas to supply without fail the personal requirements of the deity,particularly the dishes or the prasadams at the proper times, e.g., rice,boiled milk, ghee, spices, betel, etc. Another was the Head of theStorehouse. He had to send to the kitchen specific quantities of rice andother cereals, vegetables, tamarind, etc. He had to keep an account of theumbrellas used in processions and the materials for the display of fireworks.The Keeper of Miscellaneous stores was entrusted with the task ofmaintaining the numerous flowergardens of the temple, keep the dailyrequirements of flowers for puja in readiness and similarly the greens andvegetables to be supplied to the kitchen. One of his duties was to preventtheft or misuse of stores. A fourth was the Supervisor of Reconstructionand Repairs to the temple. In addition to his main function of masonry workhe had to keep a routine check on the growth of parasitic plants on thewalls and gopuras and erect pandals, water sheds, etc., and decorate themon festive occasions. The Superintendent of the Temple Lands was in chargeof the agricultural operations and despatch of grains, fruits, sugar cane,

cocoanuts, ginger, turmeric, etc., to the storehouse. He was also to supplylabourers from the villages for service during the festivals. There was also aSupervisor of the cowshed. Each of these six superintendents was assistedby one or two ekangis.

The first holder of the office of the administrative chief under theUdayavar tittam was Mudaliyandan. For nearly two centuries the office wasexercised by the members of his family. After the Muslim invasions of 1311and 1323 this family lost its control over the office as they seem to haveleft Srirangam and did not return in time to claim the office when thingsbecame normal. The Koil Olugu says, “Since the Muhammadan occupation theoffice of the administrative chief is being exercised by diverse personsknown as Sriranga Narayana Jiyar, Bhattar, Uttamanambi, Cakrarayar,Kandadai Ramanuja Aiyangar, Korattu Maniyam (Superintendent with hisstation on the verandah), Elam Kelvi (Assistant Superintendent), etc.”2(KO., p.65) Of these the first was an ascetic, who rose to importance inthe thirteenth century, founded a mutt and ultimately gained control oversome aspects of the administration of the temple.3 (Ibid., pp.114-125)Parasara Bhattar, well known simply as Bhattar, was the son of Kurattalvan,the best known disciple of Udayavar. He was a writer and was in charge ofthe darsana or philosophy and had nothing to do with management. But hissuccessors enjoyed for brief periods, during the rule of the Rayas ofVijayanagar, some honours due to the administrative chief. Thus the powersand privileges of the office Senapatidurantara came to be divided betweenAndan (of the family of Mudaliyandan), Bhattar (of the family of ParasaraBhattar) and the Jiyar (of the matha of Sriranga Narayana Jiyar).Uttamanambi and his brother Cakraraya rose to prominence during theVijayanagar period and were patronised by the Rayas, who looked upon themas the representatives and wardens of the Srirangam temple and handedover their gifts to them for administration. They enjoyed all secularauthority but had no claim to religious authority like the Jiyar or Bhattar.Kandadai Ramanuja Aiyangar or Kandadai Ramanujadasa was a non-brahmin(sattada) Srivaisnava, who became a disciple of Kandadai Annan and assumedthe dasyanama of Kandadai Ramanujadasa. He came to Srirangam in 1489and was proatnised by the Raya of Vijayanagar. From inscriptions it does notappear that he enjoyed any administrative authority over the temple. Hemade a few gifts and provided for a Ramanuja kutam or choutry.4 (Ibid.,pp.117-171) Korattu Maniyam and Elam Kelvi were perhaps officers dealingwith accounts.

The ten Brahmana groups of temple servants:

Udayavar laid down the duties of the following groups of Brahmanaservants.

(i) The Tiruppatiyar:

These were outsiders, i.e.; those not belonging to Srirangam but whobecame the disciples of Udayavar and settled down there and were assignedduties in the temple by the acarya. These were assistants to the arcakasor priests and their main function was the lighting and maintenance of lampsin the main and subsidiary shrines in the first three enclosures. Theybrought flour and ghee from the storehouse, made suitable wick holders outof the dough, placed the wicks in them and handed them over to the arcakasduring worship. Similarly they prepared other kinds of lamps like kumbalattior pot lamp and gave them to the arcakas. For the Tirukkartikai festivalthey prepared thousand large wicks and brought lighted lamps from thekitchen for worship. Besides attending to the lamps they had a few otherduties like announcing the arrival of the taligai or cooked rice offering,screening the sanctum, heaping the rice over the cloth called pavadai andholding torches during the divine meal. After the reconstruction of theDhanvantri shrine, referred to by inscriptions and the Olugu as theArogyasala in 1493 they took in procession every night milk and medicinaldecoction (kasaya) from the shrine to Garudavahana Pandita for beingoffered to the Perumal.

The duties of the temple servants passed on from father to son andwere looked upon, in course of time, as rights and privileges. Some of thesewere parted under various circumstances, e.g., “of the seven lamps whichthey (the Tiruppatiyar) used to bring from the kitchen one was given toUttamanambi as gift and the rest was disposed off independently.”5 (Ibid.,p.68) Often they were sold away.

(ii) The Tiruppani-saivar or the Kodavar:

The main function of this group of servants was the inspection of thestreets through which the deity was taken in procession during festivals.They accompanied the row of Srivaisnava hymnists, (tiruvolakkam) duringsuch processions and on their behalf received the offerings made by thedevotees, viz., coins, fruits, etc. They also offered the hymnists tirtam andprasadam. At the close of each festival they recited the Tiruppani-malai orPadippu. For this reason, says the Koil Olugu they were called Tiruppani-saivar.6 (Ibid., p.72) In the Vijayanagar period they parted with theirrights connected with the inspection of the streets. They were done the

honour of elephant ride as one of them had martyred himself in the boundarydispute with the Saivas of Jambukesvaram.7 (Ibid., pp.139-140)

(iii) The Bhagavata Nambis:

Before the days of Udayavar, according to the Olugu, the BhagavataNambis installed the flag on the flag staff during the ceremony ofdhvajarohanam, seated the images for a procession, offered the made ofoffice to the Srikaryam, ascended the dipastamba or the great lampstandand offered diparadana to the god, during the Kartikai festival, read the‘epistle to Nammalvar’ on the eve of the Tiruvaimoli festival and performedother miscellaneous duties. Udayavar is said to have raised their status byassigning to them some functions in the sanctum like offering incense duringpuja, arranging the ornaments of the utsava-beras, holding a mirror beforethe god at dawn during the ceremony of acamaniyam and when He is adornedwith kasturi and tiruman, receiving panakam or sweet drink and offering it tothe god, etc. They were generally to assist the Todavattittuimariyor in theirperformance of puja in the sanctum. The aged and the wise among themwere expected to give instructions to pupils in the Paramesvara samhita. Incourse of time, according the Olugu, they lost all their rights outside thesanctum but “obtained the duty of holding the umbrealla (to the images inprocession) from the back of the elephant (vehicle) as a gift from theTalaiyiduvar”.8 (Ibid., p.75)

(iv) The Todavatti-tuimaraiyor or Ullurar:

The first name means the pure (brahmins) wearing washed clothes andlearned in the vedas. The second means natives of the town. These were theoriginal Srivaisnava inhabitants of Srirangam with their duties mainly in thesanctum and connected with the pujas. They opened doorway of the sanctum,cleaned and kept ready the pancapatras and other vessels required for puja,kept in their custody the washed clothes for decorating the images, offeredthe amudu or the divine food (consisting of rice, etc.) mirror, jewels andornaments, kasturi and tiruman whenever they were required, restoring thejewels carefully to the Sribhandara or treasury after use, honoured theSrikaryam with parivattam, sandal paste and prasadam during festivals,added scent to the water for abhisekam held during festivals, added scentto the water for abhisekam held chaures and pearl-umbrellas when theutsava heras were bathed, carried the Satakopan behind processions keepingit on their chests and offering it to those who deserved it, performed someduties when the deity was worshipped in mantapas outside the main shrineduring festivals, brought pancakavyam from the kitchen, and performed puja

on behalf of the Senapati durantara.

The Olugu says that after the Muslim invasions the Ullurar gave awayto the Bhagavata Nambis their duties of bearing the Satakopan behindprocessions and attending to the pujas in the mantapas outside duringfestivals.

(v) The Vinnappam-saivar:

The Vinnappam-saivar or the Arayar were the musicians andchoristers of the temple. Early in the morning they played on the vina in themukhamantapa before the gates of the sanctum were opened, recited theappropriate verses from the prabandas during the morning, noon and nightpujas and during tirumanjanam recited the prabandas, dramatising the divinedeeds mentioned therein, during the Tirumoli and Tiruvaimoli festivals (i.e.,the Adyayanotsava) recited the Tiruppalli-elucci and the Tiruppavai everyday in the month of Margali, sang the swing song during the dolotsava andthe festivals of Sriramanavami and Srijayanti, and carried on the dialoguebetween the god and the goddess on the occasion of pranaya kalaham in thePanguni-uttiram festival. They began their recitals when arulappadu or thedivine commandent was issued to them. This mentioned their titles too. Whenthe recitations were closed they were honoured with parivattams. Theseduties have continued more or less without break. The Arayars trace theirdescent from the nephews of Nathamuni, who first began the recitations ofthe prabandas under the guidance of the Acarya.9 (Ibid., pp.37-38)

(vi) The Tirukkaragakkaiyar:

The word means ‘holy water pot carriers’. It was their duty to fetchwater from the Kaveri in silver pots or kudams placed on the back of anelephant, make a store of them and fill up the pancapatras and othervessels in the sanctum with the sacred water for all pujas beginning withthat at dawn. They offered during the ceremony of washing the teeth ofthe utsavabera at dawn and for washing its mouth whenever panakam andbetel were offered. They had a few duties connected with the supply ofgarlands called the vellai and the vagaccal. They made a chain of tulasibeads and offered it to the deity to be worn during the holy bath ortirumanjanam. They also supplied the Andal or pins and Arulmari or knivesused in the decoration of the procession images and seating them on theirvehicles. According to the Olugu the duties connected with the tulasi beadsand the garlands were parted in favour of the Dasanambis and a few sudraservants for monetary considerations after the Muslim invasions.

(vii) The Stanattar or Talaiyiduvar:10 (Talaiyiduvar means providers ofleaves. Its significance is not clear. This group is also called Stanattar andseems to have enjoyed a high status)

These were the bearers of the procession images seated on themounts or in the capra or palanquin. They bore on their shoulders the longpoles to which the palanquin or the vehicle was tied. After the Muslimoccupation, according to the Olugu, they gave away their function of bearingthe images to sudra servants and kept to themselves the privilege ofdirecting the procession, i.e., “stationing themselves at the head of thepoles of the palanquin in order to secure evenness of motion”. They also hadthe privilege of holding the umbrella from behind the back of the elephantbut this was given away to a Nambi by an agreement.11 (KO., p.83)

(viii) The Bhattal:

While the Arayar or the Vinnappam saivar recited the Tamil verses ofthe Nalayirapprabandam, the Bhattal recited mainly the Sanskrit pieces,selections, according to the Olugu, from “the itihasas, the SrirangaMahatmyam the Asvalayana sutra, the Bodhayana sutra the Mimamsa sutra,the vyakarana, the Nalayira Prabandam, the Alavandar stotram, theSribhasyam, the Gitabhasyam, the Gadyatrayam, and the paneangam”.These recitations were done by Periakoil Nambi before the coming ofUdayavar. After the latter assumed control of the temple the former gaveaway his right of reading the puranas etc., as a gift to kurattalvan, adisciple of Udayavar, who distributed the right among his disciples. Thevedas etc., were also included in the recitations besides the puranas.“Subsequent to the puja and the recitation of a verse from the Muvayiramby the Arayar and when arulappadu had been announced by the Ullurar, they(the Bhattar)”, says the Olugu, “would wash their hands with the pure waterbrought by the Tirukkaragakkaiyar in a huge cup. Then they would respectfully receive the prasadam from their hands and then recite the followingone by one. Garudavahana Pandita would lead with the Rigveda, Periya Nambiwould recite the yajur and the sama vedas, the Tiruppani-saivar theAtharvanaveda, the Bhagavata Nambis and Kurattalvan the Puranas,Tiruvarangattamudanar, Govinda Perumal, Accan, Pillan, Ciriyalvan, NadadurAmmal and others from various sacred shrines along with their co-preceptorswould one by one recite the itihasas”, etc.12 (Ibid., pp.84-85) They recitedthe purusa suktam during the tirumanjanam. On the Kaisika Dvadasi day theyread the Kaisikapurana. The vedas, etc., were, obviously, recited during theAdyayanotsava and not daily. At the end of the prolonged recitations they

were honoured, like the Arayars, with tirtam, sandal paste, parivattam,etc., and were taken to their homes in the Brahmarata13 (A raised planktied to poles and carried by bearers) accompanied by all the templeservants. As the temple became pronouncedly Tenkalai in spirit the Sanskritrecitations were discontinued gradually.

(ix) The Arya Bhattar:

These were the watchmen and guards of the temple. As their nameindicates they seem to have come from North India. The Koil Olugu saysthat a certain chieftain of Gaudadesa (Bengal) came to Srirangam andoffered a huge treasure to the god, who was not pleased to accept it. Thechieftain is said to have appointed some brahmanas from the north to guardthe treasure and returned. Since these brahmanas pleased the god by theirsingle minded devotion and service, the latter not only accepted the treasurebut also honoured them with the service of the temple watch. The Olugugives the date Kali 3260 (A.D.159) for this incident, but almost all the Kalidates given by the Olugu are fanciful and unreliable. Hence it is not possibleto say who this chieftain of Gaudadesa was. From inscriptions it is knownthat pilgrims from the north used to visit south Indian temples in themedieval period and make gifts.14 (ARE.1928-29, pt.II, para 36) Theearliest mention of Aryabhattal occurs in an epigraph of Srirangam dated in39th year of Kulottunga I (1109). It registers sale of land by the templeauthorities to a certain Ariyan Vasudevan Bhattan alias RajarajaBrahmarayan of Anisthanam in Kasmira desam.14a (14 of 1936-37) Thisrefers to the visit to the temple of a Kasmir brahman and his receipt ofland, which indicates that he had settled in Srirangam and taken up someservice in the temple. Visits by North Indians to the temple might haveoccurred even much earlier because, as testified to by Tirumangai Alvar, ithad become in his days, i.e., the 8th century, famous both in the north andthe south and attracted devotees from all sides. One such affluent pilgrimmight have been the chieftain of Gaudadesa, mentioned by the Olugu whoprobably came not merely with treasure but with a set of brahmana servantswith the avowed intention of dedicating them to the temple. These wereaccepted only after some hesitation. An inscription of Maravarman SundaraPandya I, dated 1225 in Srirangam, specifically mentions the Ariyar amongthe various servants of the temple.14b (53 of 1892; SII IV.500) Aninscription of Jatavarman Sundara Pandya I dated 1261 mentions Vasal-Ariyar.14c (89 of 1938-39)

The Aryabhattal kept watch from the southern and northern gateways

of the third enclosure, which are known after them, slept in the nightsbetween this pair of gateways and the next inner pair, opened thesegateways at dawn when the Tirukkarasakkaiyar came to take the waterpots, and kept watch carefully with torches in their hands” over “theincoming and outgoing of articles throughout the day and night in the firsttwo enclosures and outside the gateway of the sanctum, with the storehouse excepted”. According to the Olugu they were honoured with arulappaduwhen the god, taken in procession, reached the third gateway. The divinecommandment referred to both the Aryabhattal and the lord ofGaudadesa.15 (KO., pp.7, 86)

(ix) The Dasanambis:

These were the providers of flowers and flower garlands. They laidout flower-gardens, made varieties of flower garlands and bunches calledvagaccal, killimalai, kiliccendu, tandaimalai, kottumalai, kudamalai, etc.,decorated the palanquins with the flowers for processions, held the torchesin the divine presence near the doorway of the sanctum, and bore theSanaimudaliar and the Dasamurtis in procession during festivals. For theseservices they were honoured with tirtam, prasadam, parivattam and a singlegarland.

The Vettirapanis:

The above ten groups of brahmana servants are popularly associatedwith the organisation of Udayavar, but there were others too. The Oluguitself gives different lists.16 (Ibid., pp.48-50, p.90) The Vettirapanis ormace-holders were the orderlies of the temple. With the aid of two goldrods, two silver rods and two canes, which were also the symbols of theiroffice, they kept order in and near the sanctum during the starting of theprocession, went in advance and made way for it in the streets, kept watchoutside the tirumantapas whenever the Perumal was stationed there duringfestivals, admitted the Srivaisnavas according to their qualifications to thepresence of the deity to receive tirtam, prasadams etc., made triumphalshouts accompanied by clapping of hands when the procession started andshouted ‘silence’ on the special occasions of the Tiruvandik-kappu and thecommencement of the prabanda recitations.

The Ekangis

The duties of drawing on the cloth screen during food offering ornivedanam and drawing it off when it is over, keeping watch at the doorway

during puja, acting as the guard of the deity in the tirumantapa in the night,fetching provisions like ghee, jaggery, cardamum, frankincense, camphor,sandal paste and kumkum from the store house, etc., were done by theEkangis, who were brahmana bachelor servants (i.e., unencumbered byfamilies.17 (Now the term is applied to non-brahman servants with dutiesoutside the sanctum)

THE TEN SUDRA GROUPS OF TEMPLE SERVANTS

(i) The Vellalas:

The Koil Olugu refers to the Kalalappan and says that his duty was tomeasure the grain in the granary with the marakkal and supply the requiredquantity for daily use in the temple. Another Vellala by name Koil-kattaPerumal guarded the gateway of the Rajamahendran enclosure. The templeaccountant was also a Vellala and was called Vilupparaiyan. The term Vellalacommonly refers to cultivators and the Olugu obviously has not included thecultivators of the temple lands in the villages, far and near, among thetemple servants. According to this chronicle Udayavar wanted to entrust theaccounts to a Brahmana but was pursuaded by the local dignitaries to let theVellala remain. However he created another post called Stala-samprati andappointed a vellala, Vansatakopadasan, to it. The two officials came to beknown as Pallavan Vilupparaiyan and Pandyan Vansatakopadasanrespectively.18 (Pallavan and Pandyan are said to be names given by therespective kings to perpetuate their memory in the temple) “Of these theduties of Pallavan Vilupparaiyan were writing epistles to the Alvar, writingdown documents of the Senapati and carving inscriptions on stone. The dutiesof Vansatakopadasan were writing the lease deeds and mortgage deeds andtaking copies of the documents of the Senapati and the stone inscriptions.Both had equal jurisdictions with regard to the accounts of the store houseand the temple lands including the day-book.”19 (KO., p.91)

According to the chronicle the first office became extinct for want ofsuccessor. The accountant appointed in his place was calledSriranganarayanapiran. Both the offices carried a few honours and the Olugurefers to quarrels over precedence.

(ii) The Saluvar:

The Koil Olugu next mentions the duties of the group of servants calledthe Saluvar. They had miscellaneous functions like the ilanir kainkaryam oroffering the water of the tender cocoanuts to the god, setting up the

circular platform for the holy bath, adorning the horse vehicle of the godduring brahmotsavas and fanning the deity with camaras stationed on eitherside of the vehicle, blowing the conch and the trumpets, offering clay forsealing the locks of doorways, removing the used fuel from the kitchen andbringing plantain leaves from the gardens. Later they acquired the functionof climbing up the Karttikai dipastambha and setting alight the dipa.

(iii) The Emberumanadiyar:

The Emberumanadiyar or the Devadasis (‘Female servants of God’)were the dancing woman attached to the temple. The following were theirduties: dancing the sporting in front of the decorated elephant carrying thesacred water to the temple from the Kaveri, performing the kinds of danceslike malaippu, kelikkai, ulamadal, ammanai, etc., during the tinuandikkappuand the festive processions, enacting the appropriate episodes during theVasantotsava, enacting the rasakrida on the day of Krisnajayanti and onspecial occasions, dancing in honour of each divine vehicle during the ritual ofbheritatanam in the brahmotsavas and performing the malaippu from behindthe Arayar. One of the Devadasis adorned herself after bath and stood inthe Alagiyamanavalan tirumantapa “well in sight of the god” during the earlymorning service when the elephant, the cow, etc., were presented. They aresaid to have captivated the Muslim generals when they had occupied thetemple and saved it from destruction. When any of them died her corpsewas, for this reason, cremated by fire brought from the temple kitchen.

(iv) Tiruvelakkarar:

These were entrusted with the functions of watch and ward. Theyguarded the store house, the room containing the canopies, drums andumbrellas, the hall of the divine vehicles (vahanasala) etc., brought thegrains, jaggery, and other provisions from the adjoining villages and depositedthem in the granary or the store house and waited along with the parijanaswhen the procession started.

(v) The Kammalas:

The sculptors, masons and metal workers were grouped under theartisan class called the Kammalas. The sculptor-mason called silpacariattended to masonry repairs of the gopuras, decorated the kalasa on thevimana, made images of stucco, carved out stone images and painted figureson the walls of the mantapas etc. The goldsmith repaired the jewels andornaments of the deities, polished them frequently, made “the seven

ornaments appropriate to the seven days of the week,” attended to theduties connected with the Jyestabhisekam and provided the divine vehicleswith a covering of gold plates. The copper smith and the bell-metal workermade the plates and pots used in worship, cast lamp stands, bells and gongsand provided artistically decorated coverings for steps, stairs and pedestals.Casting of metal images was obviously an expert’s job and when a need aroseskilled professionals were employed for the purpose.

(vi) Needle workers, etc.:

The needle-workers or tailors, carpenters and silk-weavers formedone group. The first stitched a few items of the divine dress like the kabaior full frock and adorned them with pearls, prepared the ornamental andembroidered borders and pieces of cloth required in the decoration of theceiling and stitched the canopy and the blankets. The second made the divineumbrellas, the huge round fans, the birudas or badges of honour and partsof the palanquins and decorated the dhwajastamba and the mantapas withtinsel. The last made garlands of silk thread, bunches of loose silks andtassels, all for the decoration of the vehicles of the god.

(vii) The Washermen:

These washed and dried the divine garments, offered the cloth calledthe tiruppavadai for spreading the taligai or rice offering to the god and,whenever necessary, dyed the clothes used in the decoration of the ceilingsof the mantapas.

(viii) The Potters:

As it was (and still is) the practice in the Srirangam temple toprepare the prasadams in fresh earthern vessels daily the potters made adaily supply of fresh cauldrons, vessels, etc., to the temple kitchen for thepreparation of the taligai and other prasadams. They carried the pots inwhich a few kinds of cereals were sown for the ceremony of ankurarpanamand prepared the earthen lamps for display during the Tirukkattikai festival.

(ix) The Boatmen:

As Srirangam is skirted by the twin rivers, the Kaveri and theColeroon, the service of the boatmen was necessary. When the rivers werein floods they brought to the temple milk and other provisions from thevillages nearby. They served as rowers during the Teppotsavam or floatfestival and supplied, like leaves, stems, mats, baskets and floats and also

fruits like oranges and lime, which were all grown on the river banks.

(x) The Musicians:

These were all instrumentalists like the pipers, the drummers, etc.The nattuvar or dance-masters were also included in this group. The former,said to belongs to the Alagiyamanavalan group, were “masters of the fivekinds of musical instruments”, and they played to the tune of the Arayarduring the ceremonies like the padiyerram and when dances were performedby the temple dancers. On these occasions they also played individually thefive kinds of talam, “mattalam, suttalam, celli-mattalam, vagai andavijam.”20 (Ibid., pp.99-100)

References to the temple services and organisation in inscriptions:

Inscriptions found on the walls of the temple mostly register thedonations made by different persons for specified purposes and hence theycannot be expected to throw light either on the administrative organisationof the temple or its authors; but there are indirect and hence valuablereferences in them to some of the services said to have been organised byUdayavar according to the traditional sources. They throw some fresh lighttoo on administration, e.g., the Mahasabha of assembly of Srirangam andfew of its committees are mentioned in an inscription of Kulottunga I, datedin his 18th year (1088).21 (62 of 1892; SII, III, 70) This records theprovision of 6! kasu made by Arayan Garudavahan alias Kalingarayar forofferings on three nights when the text Tettarundiral (the 2nd ‘ten’ ofPerumal Tirumoli by Alvar Kulasekhara) was recited. This epigraph isimportant because it gives a few authentic details regarding the organisationof the temple in the time of Ramanuja. By order of the manager of thetemple (Srikaryam saigira adikarigal Nisadarajar, the last word being theproper name,)22 (Adhikari Nisadarajar is mentioned in other inscriptions ofKulottunga I, viz. 123 and 124 of 1938-39) the arcakas or pujaris (kanmi)entered into an agreement with the donor with regard to the administrationof the endowment. The pujaris (i.e., the temple priests), themselvesbelonged to several groups. The following two are mentioned, (1) Srivaisnavavariyam or members of the committee of Srivaisnavas, to which belongedTiruvalndi-valanadu-dasar (valudi=Pandya), Vadamaduraippirandan Nambi,Iraiyurali Nambi and Narayana Nambi of Markkamangalam, and (2)Sribhandaravariyam of members of the committee of the treasury to whichbelonged Kurugaikkavalan, Aravamudu, Tiruvaikkulam-udaiyan Sriraghavan andKesuvan Tani-ilanjingam. The last three are said to belong to the Haritagotra. An accountant of the assembly and an accountant of the Srivaisnavas

gotra. An accountant of the assembly and an accountant of the Srivaisnavas

are also mentioned. The administration of the endowment was to besupervised by the Mahasabha of Tiruvarangam. The grant provides for thesupply of cereals ghee etc., for 100 cakes to be offered to God Ranganathawhen He was hearing the recital of the Tettarundiral seated beneath thesacred Punnai tree, on the night of that day on which the bathing water ofthe idol was distributed among the devotees during the car festival in themonth of Aippasi and the festival in Panguni. As far as we know Ramanujawas in Srirangam in 1088 and the absence of the mention in this inscriptionof Udayavar or Mudaliyandan, who were so intimately connected with theaffairs of the temple according to literary tradition, is surprising. Buthappily the names of Garudavahana and Tiruvaludivalanadar are preserved byliterary tradition and are associated with Udayavar as his disciples.

The inscription of Maravarman Sundara Pandya I, dated in his 9thyear (1225), was considered in detail, in chapter V above, and itsimportance for the administrative history of the Srirangam temple pointedout. This inscription clearly refers to the ‘ten persons’, i.e., the chiefs ofthe ten groups of (Brahmana) temple servants and mentions five groups byname, viz., the Bhagavata Nambis, the Sripadamtanguvar (or the StanattarKoil Olugu), the Vinnappamsaivar, the Aryabatta and the Bhattal-kottu. Italso refers to the Srivaisnava devotees of Emperumanar (Udayavar), amongthose who took part in the deliberations, and to the Sribhandara or thetemple treasury. The king ordered a fresh choice of the temple officialsimmediately by lot and then annually by election.

Section II

ROYAL INTERVENTION AND REGULATION

It was said at the outset that the secular authority ultimatelyestablished its control over the affairs of the Srirangam temple.Inscriptions show that the Pandyas of the Second Empire and the Rayas ofVijayanagar interfered with and regulated its administrative affairs. Bothwere donors of note and more than that resuscitators of the temple, theone from the Oddas and the other from the Muslims. Appearing as savioursand grand patrons they were naturally inclined to have their say in thematter of the government of the temple. Maravarman Sundara Pandya Iordered in 1225 that the heads of the ten groups of temple servants, whohad co-operated with the hostile Odda invaders and squandered theproperty of the temple, both movable and immovable, besides collectingOddukasu, were to be dismissed from the temple services. To fill theirplaces fresh persons were to be chosen by lot. At the end of each year

places fresh persons were to be chosen by lot. At the end of each year

they were to be replaced by election.23 (53 of 1892, SII. IV, 500) Fromthe Cola inscriptions it is known that the members of the village councils orsabhas were elected by lot and out of those so elected variyams orcommittees were formed for specific purposes but, from what we know fromtraditional and literary sources, temple services were hereditary and carriedwith them certain rights and honours and nothing more. But here is a kingwho not only dismisses the temple servants from their posts but orders theirreplacement by elections to be repeated annually. The inscription adds thatthe annual election was to apply also to the various committees of theSrivaisnavas (Srivaisnava-variams). The Koil Olugu makes no reference tosuch committees nor to the choice by lot or election. It refers to holders ofrights who parted with them by sale or gift. It is probable that the orderof the Pandya regarding the election of the temple servants was ignored indue course and the offices once again became hereditary.

Collapse of the authority of the Kovanavar:

The prodigious gifts and endowments of Jatavarman Sundara Pandya Ihave been described earlier. After making gifts of gold jewels, images,vessels and platters, pedestal, throne, armour for the god, etc., all of gold,the king was naturally concerned about their proper guard and maintenance.Two records dated 1261, bear eloquent testimony to the anxiety of this kingwith regard to porkaval or guard of the temple treasury.24 (84 and 89 of1938-39; pt.II, para 28) One registers an order of the king that theguard of the treasury was no longer to be the responsibility of theKovanavar or the Acayas belonging to the family of Mudaliyanda, i.e., theKandadais, to which the Senapati-durantara belonged, but the Ariyar, i.e.,the Aryabhattal and the Ullurar were also to be associated with it. Hisofficer Vanadaraya was to enforce it. The next order, issued only a monthlater, is said to have been proclaimed by the god at the request of the king.This does not confine itself to the guard of the treasury but speaks of thetemple management as a whole and says that it was not to be a monopoly often persons belonging to the Kovanavar Kottu or group. It was now to beentrusted to a body of ten composed of two from the Kovanavar, two fromSrirangamaraiyar, i.e., the Srivaisnavas of Srirangam, learned in the Vediclore, one from the Todavattituimaraiyor or Ullurar, i.e., the arcakas, onefrom Vasal-Ariyar, i.e., the Aryabhattal and two from Arattamukki-Anakkur, i.e., officers and associates of the king. This Tamil name is veryexpressive of the power and authority of those who acted in the name ofthe king.25 (The word means one who threatens and puts dawn. Arattamukkiis used in periya Tirumadal (3.4.10) to mean petty chieftains [Tamil Lexicon]

is used in periya Tirumadal (3.4.10) to mean petty chieftains [Tamil Lexicon]

) While the Koil Olugu refers to the ten groups of temple servants it doesnot speak of a managing committee of ten Kovanavar; instead it mentions theSenapati-durantara, a Kovanavar, who was assisted by six superintendents.From the inscription we come to know that about 1261 there was such acommittee, whose members belonged to one family and that the Pandyadiluted it with fresh elements, particularly his own officials. The introductionof ex-officio members in the managing committee of the temple is a newfeature. This shows clearly that the faith which Udayavar placed in theSenapti-durantara no longer obtained. This inscription is said to have beenengraved at the instance of Sriranganarayana Dasan, the manager of thetemple, and attested by Kannudaiyan Pallavan Vilupparaiyan, the templeaccountant.

In the Vijayanagar period the royal control became tighter but it wasexercised indirectly. The Rayas of Vijayanagar restored the temple from theMuslims and made large endowments both in cash and landed property but didnot attempt to associate their officers directly with the templemanagement; instead they encouraged local men like Uttamanambi to wieldpower over the temple. This was so because they were respecters of Hindutradition and the autonomy of the Hindu temples and mathas, but in as muchas they superseded the old office-bearers, whether heriditary or elected,with men of their choice, the autonomy was, in effect, nominal.

Soon after the restoration the temple received plenty of landedproperty. Gopana Udaiyar, it was said above, donated to the temple 52villages at a cost of 17,000 gold pieces. Thus arose the problem of lookingafter the temple lands scattered in different places. An undated record inthe Srirangam temple, assigned to the 14th century on palaeographic groundsand purporting to be an order issued by god Ranganatha, directs a council of23 members - 10 selected from out of the 10 groups of temple servants, 4from the sanyasins (ascetics) and desantris (pilgrims), 5 representing the 18mandalas (divisions of the country) and 4 representing the Cera, Cola,Pandya kings and the Ksatriyas of the north (the four together standing,perhaps, for rulers in general) - to appoint sanyasins versed in Vaisnava loreand with the interests of the temple at heart, to look after the propertiesof the temple situated at several places. Provision was to be made for theirmaintenance and armed Velaikaras (servants) were to be placed at theirdisposal to help them in the discharge of their duties.26 (51 of 1938-39;pt.II, para 71) This inscription probably belongs to the period after therestoration (1371) or to the years before 1323, for between 1323 and1371 the temple had lost its all. The sanyasins, it was expected, would act

1371 the temple had lost its all. The sanyasins, it was expected, would act

not only disinterestedly but would command respect from among the people.In their appointment the representatives of the kings had a voice. Thesewere obviously not royal officials but their nominees.

The Koil Olugu laments the collapse of the Udayavar code and the riseof new men, who were mere householders without any pretension to learningor spiritual attainments like Uttamanambi and Cakraraya, in the place of theoffice of the Senapatidurantara, a Kovanavar, descending hereditarily in thefamily of Mudaliyandan. The offices multiplied. Interferences in theadministration of the temple continued under the Nayaks, while the Nawabsof Arcot seem to have exercised a judicious non-interference as a result ofwhich the heriditary principle became re-established. The offices ofUdayavar with specified functions had disappeared for ever.

Royal Intercession in Boundary Disputes:

Different from the control sought to be imposed upon the temple bythe king or his officials, directly or indirectly, was the royal intervention tosettle boundary disputes between the Srirangam temple and the neighbouringSaiva temple of Jambukesvaram. Such intercession was welcomed by thetemple. Two such cases have been noticed earlier. One occurred in the reignof Cola Kulottunga III. One of his records in the Srirangam temple givesdetails of his order issued in his 20th year (1198) to his tax collectingofficers to settle the boundary between the lands belonging to the twotemples, which had been washed away on account of the erosion of the riverKollidam. Disputes had been growing for nearly a year. The services of athird party were necessary and the king’s mediation was sought or imposed.In any case the arbitration of the officials was accepted, as it wassatisfactory to both the parties. The record says that the officials heldconsultations with the representations of both the temples, representativesof the sabha, accountants of the two villages and the superintendents orwardens of the two temples. While adjudging the award they took intoaccount not only the holdings of the two temples before the erosion as knownfrom records by the actual enjoyment rights of both the parties as obtainedthen and there and suggested suitable exchange of lands in some cases.27(113 of 1938-39) Incidentally it may be noted that his record refers to thetax collecting officers as puravu vari-kurusaivar, i.e., the officers whocollected taxes making a distinction or division (kuru) between tax-free(puravu) and taxable (vari) lands.

The other boundary dispute arose, according to the Vaisnava chroniclesof Srirangam, over the practice of taking the image of Ranganatha in

of Srirangam, over the practice of taking the image of Ranganatha in

procession to the Jambutirtam in Jambukesvaram on the 8th day ofPanguniutiram festival. The Saivas objected to this and took the case toVijayanagar. The Vaisnavas of Srirangam too sent their representatives.The Raya (Devaraya II, 1426-1446) sent a few arbitrators, the boundaryline was marked as described earlier and a wall erected in 1433.

Oppression by governors:

The governors or mandaladipatis of the Rayas of Vijayanagar weresometimes oppressive and collected unauthorised taxes from the temple-landswhich were all tax-free. As a result of this oppression, says an inscriptionof Devaraya II, dated, 1427, the cultivators of the devadana landsbelonging to the Saiva and Vaisnava temples in the Thiruchirapalli and theneighbouring rajyas threw up their holdings and migrated elsewhere thusjeopardising the conduct of worship. When the people began to make loudcomplaints the Raya issued an order prohibiting the collection of taxesexcepting the customary vibhutikanikkai and sent two agents to the south toenforce the order.28 (113 of 1936-37; pt.II, para 56) Koneriraja wasanother governor who oppressed the Srirangam temple, in particular,between the years 1488 and 1492. He not merely collected taxes from thetemple lands but imposed various levies on the Vaisnavas of Srirangam likepattana-vari (municipal tax) and kudiyiruppu (house tax) and took away muchmoney and gold from the temple as kanikkai (tribute) and pattu andparivattam (honours to the king). The self immolation of a few templeservants and jiyas to protest against this oppression has been referred toearlier in detail.

Section III

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE

The temple did not collect levies from the worshippers. There is noevidence in the inscriptions or the in the Olugu to show that any fee wascollected from any worshipper for darsan or for the performance of anyseva or a special mode of worship. All its income was derived from free giftsof land, gold, cash and various articles in kind made by individuals, high andlow. The grants themselves often clearly laid down how the land or moneywas to be utilised. The land and money gifted were detailed and registered ininscriptions on the walls and pillars of the temple. The accountant of thetemple recorded the same in the Olugu or the diary of the temple in thepresence of witnesses.

There does not seem to have been any machinery for the enforcementof the grant in letter and spirit. Grants of gold or money were formallyhanded over to the sabha of Tiruvarangam, which also undertook formally tofulfill the conditions of the grant. It is not clear what exactly was therelationship between the sabha and the temple. The sabha or the localcouncil, which was responsible for the local administration of the township,obviously must have exercised some control over the temple, which after allwas the heart of the township. As the temple was a large landowner, thereis no doubt that it was represented in a big way in the sabha. Theinscriptions often conclude with a few imprecatory verses, which promisegreat merit as well as rewards for those who implicitly carried out thepurposes of the donation and at the same time remind the sinners whomisused the grant of the dire consequences of their act. The grant is oftenplaced under the protection of the Srivanisnavas (Sri Vaisnava raksai).

The chief items of expenditure of the temple were the dailyPerformance of the pujas and the celebration of the occasional festivals,most of which were covered by specific donations. Since circulating moneywas not involved in a large scale in the case of incomes so was the case ofexpenditure. The temple servants were not paid salaries in cash but theyhad their share of the prasadam or cooked food and eatables, which werefirst offered to the deity and then distributed among them and also, insmaller quantities, among the worshippers. The priests and acaryas, thelatter noted for their learning and spiritual attainments, received gifts ofland or house-sites from pious donors.

Types of benefactions:

Here is given a peep into the variety of gifts known from inscriptionsexcluding structures, i.e., shrines, walls, gopuras, etc., and images, bothstone and metal, for worship. Many inscriptions record gifts of money forburning permanent lamps (nandavilakku) in the temple. Sometimes cows wereprovided for the supply of ghee for burning lamps. Lands for rearing flowergardens were often gifted to the temple. Gold coins kasu, gadyanas,varahas, pons, etc.), were gifted for the institution of some sandi or servicei.e., worship along with offerings, on a particular day when the god wastaken in procession to a particular mantapa during a certain festival and soon. The object of the gift was to commemmorate one self or his father orson and in, one instance, his teacher.

Grants of villages were made, on a large scale, in the Vijayanagar andNayak periods. The villages were often purchased from private individuals

Nayak periods. The villages were often purchased from private individuals

and gifted to the temple. Gopana granted 52 villages at a cost of 17,000gold pieces. Devaraya II gifted 11 villages on different occasions. Villageswere mostly given away to the temple with all rights (sarvamanya), whenthey became the devadana or tiruvidaiyattam lands. Food grains harvested inthese lands were brought and stored in the eight gigantic granaries in thethird enclosure of temple. They were tax-free or irai-yili. Sometimes onlythe income from taxes of a village or villages was gifted. In 1673Cokkanadha Nayak of Madura made a gift of 50 villages and recognised the40 and odd villages already in possession of the temple and issued a tamra-sasana (copper plate grant) to Uttamanambi giving details of 96 villages asthe property of the temple. Villages or lands were gifted by royal officersand private persons too as poliyuttu for purposes of acquiring merit of thedonor or his son or father to be utilised for the conduct of the daily worshipand offerings specified as cakes, curd-rice, sweet-rice etc. or for theconduct of a special service, e.g., the provision of pulugu-kappu (civetointment) to the god every Friday. A village called Naruvuru was gifted in1414. It was to be renamed Ranganathapura. Out of its income a dailyservice to the god was to be instituted with the full round of offerings offood, waving camphor lights, sandal paste, flower garlands, incense, etc., aflower garden was to be maintained and garlands supplied, a catra for thepilgrims was to be constructed and 12 brahmanas were to be fed dailytherein with rice, dal, four vegetable curries and butter-milk with betalleaves and nuts, and eight brahmanas in Naruvuru were to be given eachsome rent-free land. Lands were gifted sometimes for prabandic recitations,e.g., to reward those who recited the Iyarpa. House-sites and lands weregifted for the supply of alms (musti-madhukaram) and the sacred threads(yajnopavitas).

The paraphernalia of worship often formed the subject of donations.The benefactions of Jatavarman Sundara Pandya I have been dealt withearlier. Among other objects given in the Vijayanagar and Nayak periodswere gold dishes and cups for offerings amudu to Ranganatha, gold kalasa orpot for storing water for puja, gold lampstand, metal cuirass (breast andback plates), kancuka or vestcoat inlaid with precious stones, pearl garment(muttangi), a jewelled kirita or crown for the goddess, girta and karnapatra(ear-ring) for the god, padakam or pendent, etc.

The kings occasionally performed tulabhara or tulapurusa ceremoniesi,in which they weighed themselves against gold, cash and jewels and giftedthem away to the temple. The gold plates that covered the vimana and thedhwajastambha were renewed now and then or repaired and relaid.

dhwajastambha were renewed now and then or repaired and relaid.

The temple chronicle and traditional accounts record the multifariousgifts and services of Vijayavanga Cokkanatha Nayak and a few others likeKandadai Ramanuja-dasa, which are not mentioned in inscriptions.

It is a fact that neither the granaries nor the temple, treasury hadany guard for protecting the grain or valuables against an armed attack byenemies. The Aryabhattal and other watchmen, etc., were intended more toprevent theft and misappropriation by the temple servants than to defendthe temple in a crisis. Any such threat was not expected and hence nosecurity measures were taken. As a result the temple lost all its property inthe course of the Muslim invasions of the first quarter of the 14th century.

THE END

Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.