|
THE VIJAYANAGARA KINGS
Uttamanambi and Chakraraya.
These two famous brothers of the Kāṥyapa-gōtra belonged to the family of
the Pūrvaṥikhā sect of Brahmans who are said to have migrated to Śrīraṅgam
along with the Vaishṇava saints Periyālvār (Vishṇuchitta) and his daughter
Āṇḍāḷ from Śrīvilliputtūr. The genealogy of this family is collected in a recently
published pamphlet, called the Uttamanambi-vaṁṥa-prabhāvam. Garuḍavāhana-Paṇḍita, the contemporary of the great Rāmānuja, who is stated to have been in
charge of a hospital in the Raṅganātha temple, is said to have belonged
to this family. Uttama-Nambi and Chakrarāya lived in the time of Dēvarāya
and through their influence, the king is said to have granted the revenue of as
many as 52 villages to the Raṅganātha temple. Some of these facts are also
mentioned in the temple chronicle called the Kōyilolugu. A Sanskrit work
named the Lakshmīkāvyam composed by Tirumalainātha-Uttamanambi, another
member of this family who lived about this period, contains some information
on the genealogy of the author’s predecessors and this has been noticed in Epigraphia Indica, Volume XVIII, page 139. A few verses in Sanskrit in praise of
this Chakrarāya are stated in No. 82 to have been composed by an ascetic named Vyāsabhārati, who is also referred to in an inscription at Lālguḍi (No. 131 of
1928-29) as being the disciple of Rāmachandra-yati and the son of Dakshiṇā-
mūrti and Marakatavallī of the Chillamantāgrahāra in Toṇḍai-maṇḍalam.
Agreement between the Valaṅgai and Iḍaṅgai classes
64. Anther record or Dēvarāya from Elavānāṥūr (No. 490), dated in Śaka
1359 is of interest, as it relates to an agreement between the Valaṅgai and Iḍaṅgai Agreement between the Valaṅgai and Iḍaṅ-gai classes. classes of Valudilambaṭṭu-ṥāvaḍi, which had
assembled in the maṇḍapa of the Ūrbāgaṅ-koṇḍaruḷiya-Nāyanār at Eraivānaraiyūr
for the purpose of the deciding as to how best they could withstand unauthorished
levy of taxes by the king’s officers. The following resolutions were passed :-
1. As the tenants of this maṇḍalam had been harassed by the king’s officers
and the jīvitakkāras, they agreed to adhere to the old rates of taxation only, both
in kind and money, and to pay towards tarakkāṇikkai (quit-rent) only one paṇam
per mā (of cultivated land).
2. No other taxes such as nallerudu. narpaṥu, narkiḍā, jōḍi, viniyōgam,
nērōlai-kāṇikkai and kudirai-kāṇikkai was to be levied.
3. The tax payable per loom by the Kaikkōḷas should not be altered.
4. The Brāhmaṇas and the Veḷḷāḷas born in the rājya should not allow vāravari to be collected, neither should they be guilty of nāṭṭudrōha by writing
accounts, taking service with the bhaṇḍāra in the taravukkaḷam or with the araṥukkārar or jīvitakkāra, nor of carrying tales against them to the authorities.
5. Cases classifiable as ṥerra-kurram (homicide ?) should be properly
adjudged by them in full assembly, leaving out cases of karra-kurram (minor
offence ?).
6. Any one purchasing as mānya or jīvita the service lands other than (of)
their own (group) and those collecting taxes other than what is due to be paid
as rājakaram, should also be considered a nāṭṭu-drōhis.
7. As regards the collection of āyam, 1½ paṇam per loom should be levied as nūlāyam, this rate being halved in the case of parai-tari looms.
8. The jīvitakkārar should not cultivate lands other than those assigned to
them by the Ūravar (assembly).
The gift of the village Suravipaṭṭu to a certain Sambandāṇḍār presiding over
the maṭha at Tiruvaṇṇāmalai in Śaka 1359 is recorded in No. 384 from Śoraiyap-paṭṭu, South Arcot district. A Telugu record (No. 242) from Kōḍūru in the
Cuddapah district registers the gift of that village to the temple of Chennakē-ṥava-Perumāḷ bi Mahāmaṇḍalēṥvara Avubaḷadēva-Mahārāja in the cyclic year
Saumya, which evidently corresponded to Śaka 1351 in Dēvarāya’s reign.
|
