Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Events of Today
HISTORY
Chapter I
M
A
I SOURCES
N
Epigraphy
M
E
N The study of the history of the Srirangam temple has been rendered
U
possible mainly by the remarkable advance of epigraphy in South India. An
account based wholly on glorifying Mahatmyas and historically useless myths
and legends is bound to be incomplete, indefinite and unreal. Most of the
inscriptions in the Srirangam temple have been reported on and some of them
edited in the publications of the Department of Epigraphy. Though there are
a few Pallava inscriptions in the Trichinopoly cave and in Tiruvellarai and
Uyyakondan Tirumalai near Srirangam the Srirangam temple itself contains no
Pallava inscriptions. The earliest inscriptions are the Cola inscriptions of the
10th century A.D. and of these the first is dated in the 17th year of
Parantaka I (907 - 953 A.D.) These are followed by the inscriptions of the
Pandyas of the Second Empire. They record the numerous and rich
benefactions made to the temple by these kings and are often setout in such
great detail that they confirm in a large measure the account in the
Vaisnava chronicles of the bountiful resources of the temple that lay at the
back of the ceremonious conduct of worship and festivals for the God
Renganatha.
The major South Indian temple was the result of a gradual process of
accretion; the number of sub-shrines containing the images of minor deities
and sublimated devotees clustering around the main shrine were raised in
different periods by beneficent princes. The only source for a proper study
of the structural growth of the Srirangam temple is epigraphical. Here again
a chronological list of the inscriptions in the temple furnishes a clear sketch
of the physical growth of the temple. From a study of such a list it can be
seen that a majority of the minor shrines were constructed in the 13th
century, when the region round Srirangam was under the occupation of the
Hoysalas and after them the Pandyas of the Second Empire. It is also known
that some of the structures that had suffered damage during the Muslim
occupation were repaired or reconstructed subsequently by the chieftains of
Vijayanagar. The Koil-Olugu, which gives a detailed account of the several
structures with the names of their builders and Saka dates, has, it is
found, drawn its information largely from inscriptions.
Over and above these, the inscriptions furnish various minor details
useful for the history of the temple. For example a couple of inscriptions in
Srirangam supply the rare and interesting information about the transfer of
the management of certain shrines (the Dasavatara shrine and the
Tirumangai Alvar Sannidhi) to new arcakas and the duties they were
expected 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 temple
tell 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 against
insufficient 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 that
munificent Hindu kings founded in their names festivals that continue to this
day, and established agraharas or Brahmin-habitations going by the name of
Caturvedimangalams. Such are the Bhupati Udayar festival, called after
Bhupati Udayar, a chieftain of Vijayanagar of the First Dynasty and
Ravivarman-caturvedi-mangalam, called after the famous Ravivarman
Kulasekhara.
One of the Aham odes refers to Arangam and the Panguni festival on
the banks of an adjacent river.6 (Aham 137) It is likely that this has
reference to one of the important festivals of the Srirangam temple. Aham
400 or the Ahananuru is one of the oldest anothologies included in the
classical Tamil literature, better known as the Sangam works. By common
consent this group is assigned to the same age in which Ptolemy and the
anonymous author of the Periplus wrote about South India, i.e., the first
two or three centuries of the Christian era.7 (This period is sometimes
extended so as to include the 5th century also) The Silappadikaram which is
also included in this group, refers more definitely to the Srirangam temple.
The Koil-Olugu
Two genealogical lists called the Annan Tirumaligai Olugu and the
Uttamanambi vamsa-prabhavam deal respectively with the families of
Kandadai Andan, the son of Mudaliyandan, to whom the control of the temple
was entrusted by Ramanuja, and the Uttamanambis, who played a notable
part in the history of the Srirangam temple, especially during the
Vijayanagar period. Both the accounts were collected by Col. Colin
Mackenzie. The latter is also available in print.
It is not easy to fix the age of the samhita. It need not be held that
it belongs to a period when full blown temples with seven prakaras and
elaborate rules regarding pujas, festivals, etc., were known, for such a view
presupposes that the temple came first and then the agama. It is more
likely that the agamas, in a very early period, laid down rules, as
elaborately as possible, governing the architecture and iconography of an
ideal temple as well as pujas, prayascittas etc., and that temple builders
tried to follow them as best as they could. If it is accepted, on the
authority of the Koil-Olugu, that the Vaikhanasas were doing worship in the
Srirangam temple and that they were replaced by Udayavar by priests
trained in the Pancaratra, as expounded in the Paramesvara-samhita,15
(KO. pp.45, 46, 55, 100 and 173) the latter was certainly known in his
period and perhaps long before. One thing appears to be plain. Whoever the
author of the samhita was he seems to have had the Srirangam temple in his
mind, for Chapter X, which deals with the vimana devatas, mentions the
Ranga-vimana and relates its mahatmya. It is also possible that it was the
product of more than one author belonging to different periods.
Modern Period
NEXT
PAGE
CHAPTER 2
The river Kaveri, which divides the district into two nearly equal
parts, the northern and the southern, splits into two nine miles west of
Srirangam. The northern branch takes the name of Coleroon (Kollidam) while
the southern retains the name of the Kaveri. Eight miles east of the town
they almost reunite through the channel known as Ullar, but are kept apart
by 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 Tanjore
district, exhausts itself in a network of irrigation channels, and almost loses
itself in the sands before reaching the sea. But the Coleroon, which forms
through its entire length the dividing line between the Thiruchirapalli and the
Tanjore districts, falls into the sea at the northern most point of the
Tanjore district as a wide mouthed river.
From its source upto Erode the river is known as the Kaveri; from
Erode upto the point of bifurcation ahead of Srirangam as the ‘Akhanda’ or
‘undivided’ Kaveri and thence Kaveri once more. The two branches of the
same river are also referred to as the southern and the northern Kaveri
rivers in literature of a traditional and religious type. Ptolemy refers to it in
his Geography as Khaberos.
The river has ever been an important adjunct to the Hindu temple and
the former is as sacred as the latter. This is especially so with regard to
the Srirangam temple, which lies in all the natural richness and sanctity that
could be afforded by the two rivers that flow on either side, ‘garlanding’ as
it were, in the language of the Mahatmya, the God enshrined therein.
According to Puranas (Agneya and Skanda) Kaveri was originally the daughter
of Brahma and later became the adopted child of Kaveramuni. Out of her
own prayers she became a sacred river, whose waters should wash away all
sin. According to the Harivamsa Kaveri was originally one-half of the Ganga
and 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 existence
by the prayers of Kantaman and his devotion to the sage Agastya to avert
the distress caused by drought in his land; and that it appeared by the side
of the city of Campapati.1 (Manimekalai, Padigam, lines 6-14) The name
‘Kaveri’ is better explained by some such legendary association rather than
an attempted derivation of the word from ‘Kavi’ (red ochre) because of the
muddy 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 prominently
mentioned in Tamil literary tradition. The river must have overflowed
because it had very few outlets excepting one, viz., the Coleroon, in the
shape of tributaries that spread all over the Tanjore district today. In the
historical period the Srirangam temple itself was often threatened by floods
in the Kaveri and diversion channels had to be dug now and then to remove
the overflow.3 (KO. pp. 118-19)
The river Coleroon is a more imposing river than the Kaveri as it moves
farther and farther away from its parent. The Tamil forms Kollidam.
Kollidam mean respectively a ‘receptacle’ or ‘reservoir’ and ‘a place of
slaughter’. The fact that the Coleroon acts as a safety-valve of the Kaveri
carrying off its surplus water might have given rise to the form of ‘Kollidam’.
Regarding the other expression popular tradition says that a certain local
chief build the temple at Srirangam with the help of wealth obtained from
plunder. The builder employed an army of men and ultimately found his
coffers empty. When the labourers clamoured for wages he took them all in
a huge boat to the middle of the river Coleroon, where he drowned them
with the thought that they would obtain beautification as a reward for their
sacred services. The Guruparamparai and the Prapannamrtam mention this
incident and attribute it to Tirumangai Alvar.
Uraiyur
When God created Brahma from his navel and deputed him to create
the earth the latter was at his wit’s end when he saw a sheer expanse of a
water. 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 manifestation
of a horse (hayagriva) and disappeared after restoring the Vedas. Then
Brahma created the universe.
Brahma awoke from his penance and prostrated himself before the
vimana. He stood up saying the four Vedas through his four mouths and was
lost in amazement. Sunanda, a celestial watch at the gate (dwarapalaka),
told him that the three lettered Vimana, ‘Sri-ra-nga’ was the result of his
penance, that God was resting with His consort inside and that he could see
Him 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 a
result of your penance.” Then he explained to him the four types of idols
and vimanas, - (1) Svayamvykta - created by God, i.e., God Himself
choosing 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 eight
places - Srirangam, Srimusnam, Venkatadri, Saligram, Naimisaranyam,
Totadri, Puskara and Badrikasrama. Rangavimana is the first and the
earliest of these” Speaking of the second class of idols the God said, “I will
come to Kanci as Varadaraja, where my idol will be installed by you. Ananta
will 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.” Then
the God explained to Brahma the procedure for conducting the worship and
lay down in the characteristic pose at Srirangam and kept silent.
Brahma took the vimana from Ksirasagar to his abode in Satyaloka and
established it on the banks of the Vraja. He appointed Viwasvan, the sun
god, to do the daily puja of the God. After Viwasvan his son Vaivasvata
Manu continued the puja. Iksvaku, a son of Manu, became the king of
Ayodhya and found it difficult to worship the vimana at Satyaloka. Hence he
did penance, which extended over hundreds of years, and obtained the
permission of Brahma to take it to Ayodhya. After Iksvaku his descendants
worshipped the God. Rama gave the vimana to Vibhisana, who established it
on 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 Vimana
and added that after being worshipped by him and his generations, it would
establish itself in Srirangam and be worshipped by the Cola monarchs. As
advised by his guru Iksvaku did penance near the former’s asrama with the
object of bringing the vimana to Ayodhya from Satyaloka. Indra, the king of
the gods knew the purpose of the penance and consulted Brahma about the
possibility of their losing the vimana. Brahma went to Visnu, who told him
that it was His intention to go to Ayodhya and thence to Srirangam. Then
Brahma brought the vimana to Iksvaku on the back of Garuda. Iksvaku
carried the vimana to Ayodhya, established it between the rivers Sarayu
and Tamasa, built a shrine and organised worship.
Vibhisana bore the vimana on his head and, on his way to Lanka,
stopped at Srirangam and placed the vimana on the banks of the
Candrapuskarani. The risis immediately informed Dharmavarma about the
arrival of the vimana. The Cola king came to the spot and received Vibhisana
with great delight. The latter bathed in the sacred waters of the Kaveri
and worshipped the vimana. Dharmavarma also performed puja and requested
Vibhisana to stay with him for a few days. To this Vibhisana did not agree
and said that an utsava had to be performed in Lanka the next day. The
cola replied that the festival might as well be performed in his own country
and that he would meet all the expenses. Vibhisana then agreed to stay, and
the festival was begun and celebrated for nine days in a grand fashion.
After a stay of a fortnight Vibhisana started for Lanka. To his utter
amazement and sorrow the vimana had got itself fixed to the spot where he
had placed it and had become irremovable.8 (According to the popular local
version Vibhisana had been instructed by Rama not to place the vimana on
the ground. At Srirangam Vibhisana entrusted it to a Brahmana boy for a
short while. The latter placed it on the ground as the former did not return
in time, as promised. When he returned Vibhisana found the vimana on the
ground and irremovable. He became angry and chased the boy, who ran up
the rock on the other side of the Kaveri. He was no other than Ganesa
(Uccipillaiyar). See also Parameswara Samhita (10:279-281) ) Vibhisana
shed tears. The God then said to him, “This place is good, so also its king
and people. I desire to stay here. You may retire to Lanka”. He also
related to Vibhisana the sanctity of the river Kaveri. “Visvavasu, a
Gandharva of the Vindhyas, met on the hill side a congregation of river
goddesses and made his obeisance to them. Immediately a debate arose as
to whom it was meant. All except Ganga and Kaveri withdrew from the
contest. Both the disputants went to Brahma, who declared that Ganga was
superior. Kaveri did penance as a result of which Brahma granted to her a
status of equality. Still dissatisfied she is performing penance at
Saraksetra. To give her the first place among the rivers I have to raise
her sanctity to the utmost by remaining in her midst. I will recline here
facing your country. You may go back to Lanka.”
That this tradition in the Mahatmya was not of a late origin and
purely of local character can be gleaned from references to it in the Valmiki
Ramayana and the Padma and Matsya puranas. From the Valmiki Ramayana
we know that Rama advised Vibhisana, before he retired to Vaikunta, to rule
over his country with righteousness and to worship constantly the family
deity of the Iksvaku kings that had been presented to him.9 (Uttarakanda,
sarga 131, slokas 30, 31 and 91.) The object presented is mentioned as
kuladana or family property. That this kuladana was Sriranga Vimana is
known from the Padma Purana.10 (Padma Purana, Uttara kanda, Ch.90
(Sriranga varnana) ) The Matsya Purana mentions Srirangam as a place of
pilgrimage.11 (Ch.22. v.44. (12) Canto X.L.156; XI.L.39.) In the present
stage of things these references are more genuine that the ‘10 chapters’ of
the Sriranga Mahatmya, said to be an episode in the Brahmanda Purana and
the ‘108 chapters’ version of the Garuda Purana.
Etymology
Poigai Alvar sings of the God at Srirangam and exclaims that he would
never forget the Perumal: “I knew and worshipped, even while I was in my
mother’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 centum
6.)
Tirumalisai Alvar
Again, “which is the sacred shrine where abides the mighty Perumal
who, once, shot arrows from His strong bow, the ‘Sarnga’, so that even the
black sea with white waves caught fire and glowed red? (It is) the beautiful
Tiruvarangam, which contains many sacred pools, in which people from all the
eight directions bathe and worship and which is surrounded by gardens where
sing the bees.”23 (Ibid.50.)
Over and above the river and the gardens, Srirangam was famous for
the eight sacred pools or punya tirtas in the eight directions around the
shrine, which are referred to by Tirumalisai, when he speaks of the ‘sacred
pools, in which people from all the eight directions bathe and worship’ The
local stalamahatmya, said to form part of the Garuda purana, speaks of
these eight tirtas, surrounding the chief tirta within the shrine, viz., the
Candrapuskarani. They are (1) the Asvatta tirta in the south, (2) the
Palasa tirta in the southwest, (3) the Punnaga tirta in the west, (4) the
Vagula tirta in the northwest, (5) the Kadamba tirta in the north, (6) the
Amra tirta in the northeast, (7) the Bilva tirta in the east, and (8) the
Jambu tirta in the southeast. Each tirta had its own presiding deity, its own
Mahatmya and certain vratas connected with it. Each was associated with a
particular tree.
NEXT
PAGE
CHAPTER 3
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 all
defeated and their territories overrun by some tribe or tribes, alien to the
Tamils, who called them in detestation ‘Kali arasar’ or ‘evil kings’, and that it
was on the ruins of the kingdom of these tribes of ‘Kalabhras’ that the
Pandyas revived their power in the south and the Pallavas established their
kingdom to the north of the Kaveri towards the close of the 6th century
A.D. We are on firm ground from 575 A.D. when the Pallava monarchs of
the Simhavisnyu line began to rule from Kanci. The Colas seem to have
continued to rule from Uraiyur not independently but as subordinates of the
Pallavas. They were able to reestablish their independent power only towards
the close of the 9th century, when the Pallavas of Kanci had weakened
themselves to a point of exhaustion as a result of almost unending conflicts
with the early Calukyas of Vatapi in the north in the early period and the
Pandyas in the south in the later period.
Though this age, i.e., the period immediately preceding the rise of the
Cola empire under Vijayalaya and Aditya, witnessed considerable political
unsettlement and confusion it was yet the heroic age of Hinduism in South
India. It saw the activities of the Saivite trio Appar, Sambandar and
Sundarar, the authors of the intensely devotional Tevaram songs, and who
popularised Sivabhakti among the princes and the people. Mahendravarman
Pallava (600-630 A.D.) was converted by Appar from Jainism to Saivism and
the Pandya Parankusa Maravarman alias Kun Pandya (670-710 A.D.) was
the Pandya Parankusa Maravarman alias Kun Pandya (670-710 A.D.) was
similarly converted by Sambandar. Everywhere in the south the Saiva and
Vaisnava movements were together overcoming the influence of Jainism and
Buddhism in high places and recording their triumphs. Temples to Siva and
Visnu were constructed in large numbers, e.g., the early Calukyan and
Pallava temples. The Srirangam temples seems to have waxed under the
impact of this renaissance. This is evident from the prabandas or verses of
the later Alvars.
She knows no sleep either in the day or in the night; tears stream
down 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)
Kulasekhara Alvar
Even as a ruler Kulasekhara was fond of the Ramayana and the two
shrines of Srirangam and Tiruvengadam. In the 1st verse of the 3rd ‘ten’ he
declares that he is not going to be one with the wold, which professes what
is 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 in
a streamlet on the Vengadam hills, or a menial servant or a doorstep in the
Vengadam temple, rather than be a king. The first three ‘tens’ are devoted
to Srirangam to which shrine Kulasekhara was particularly attached. In
verse I of the first ‘ten’ he exclaims:
The Pandya king of the 8th century, who was converted to Vaisnavism,
may be identified with Maravarman Rajasimha I (740-765 A.D.) on the
ground that his predecessor, who bore the title ‘Maran’ or ‘Maravarman’,
was Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman (970-710 A.D.), who was converted
from Jainism to Saivism by Sambandar and hence was not a Vaisnava. This is
supported by epigraphical evidence too.8 (Madras Museum plates, IA XXII
pp.72-75) The date of the daughter of the Alvar, Andal, has been sought
to be fixed independently from certain astronomical details. The reference
to the simultaneous rise of the Venus and the setting of the Jupiter in the
first hours of the full moon day in the month of Margali occurring in the
Tiruppavai (verse 13), yield only one date in the 8th century, viz., the 18th
day of December 731 A.D. They also correspond to two days in the years
885 and 886 A.D. but it was already shown that such dates in the 9th
century are too late for the later Alvars.9 (M.Raghava Aiyangar, Alvarkal
Kalanilai. pp.79-81)
Andal, famed for her beauty, was struck with a real passion for the
God at Srirangam, unlike the other Alvars, who could only liked themselves
to a loving young woman; none but God Ranganatha would she marry, and
certainly 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 my
life”.12 (Nacciyar Tirumoli, 1-5) Ranganatha, who had already chosen her as
His bride, commanded Periyalvar, in his dream, to bring his daughter to Him.
The father accordingly took Andal to Srirangam, where we are told the
loving devotee became one with the god. Much different from this general
account of the Guruparamparais is that of the Divyasuricaritam, whose
central theme is the marriage of Andal with Ranganatha, which is described
in the right epic fashion just like the marriage of Uraiyurvalli with the same
God in the Lakshmi Kavyam. The Caritam says that Periyalvar conducted the
marriage of his daughter, after obtaining the blessings of Nammalvar, who
was 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 makes
all the Alvars witness the marriage in order to glorify its theme. Periyalvar,
who was left alone returned to Srivilliputtur in great sorrow at the
separation, to which he has given the most pathetic expression in his
verses.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 a
ceremonial vrata by the peasant girls, in the early mornings of the month of
Margali, with the young Krisna in the fore. The latter has 14 ‘tens’, in which
she expresses her passionate love for Visnu. In the 7th ‘ten’, e.g., she
envies the conch in the left hand of the God because of its close association
with His lips. Verse 4 of the 11th ‘ten’, which is devoted to Srirangam
contains a reference to the storied houses and prakara walls, of Srirangam,
and verse 7 again refers to the mighty enclosing walls.
Tondaradippodi Alvar
Into the Tirumalai of 45 verses the Alvar has infused all the genuine
fervour of a fresh convert to the right conduct; the lowest of the lowly
positions he was in is contrasted with the real and lasting happiness flowing
from a loving devotion to God. In the opening verses he expresses his scant
regard for those materialistic people who do not worship Ranganatha. He
brings home the point when he says: “Better the dogs eat the food of those
who will not say (i.e., worship) Tiruvarangam of the beautiful gardens, where
hum the bees, where dance the peacocks, where sing cuckoos, whose tree
tops reach the clouds, and where dwells Ranganathan.17 (Tirumalai-14) In
verse 2 he declares that he would fondly adhere to the loving worship of the
God at Srirangam, ‘whose mouth is like coral and eyes like lotuses,’ and spurn
even the rulership of the kingdom of the Gods if it were offered to him. In
the 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 tells
us of his own unholy past and he was resurrected by the beneficent God of
Srirangam. The same autobiographical detail we find mentioned also in verse
33. In verse 19 he gives us an accurate picture of the posture and position
of 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 sea
like hue reposing on the serpent couch, facing Lanka in the south, with His
back to the North, His feet extended towards the east and His head
pointing to the west”. The next verse describes the chest, the shoulders,
the eyes, the lips, the mouth and the beautiful crown of the Ranganatha
image. Verse 23 again exhibits the loving devotion of the Alvar born of his
personal and intimate association with the God. ‘How can I, the poorest of
the poor, ever forget the unique posture in which our benevolent Lord
Ranganatha is reposing in Srirangam of beautiful gardens lying in the midst of
the Kaveri (rivers) fowing on either side’. Verse 29 exemplifies the Vaisnava
canon of object surrender to the divine will in the most touching terms: ‘I
was 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 Most
Supreme One, Krisna of the hue of the clouds! I cry in despire; you are my
sole protector.’ The next seven verses are replete with this idea of the
Alvar, with all his loneliness and disqualifications, crying out for the mercy of
the God in the profoundest humility. In verse 38 the Alvar tells us that
saints and ascetics adorned the courtyard of the Srirangam temple. That
among such devotees were to be found members of the low castes also and
that worshippers belonging to divers creeds devoted themselves to the
service of Ranganatha without any distinction is clear from verses 42 and
43. This has been, especially in its early stages, one of the attractive
features of Vaisnavism; and that among the Alvars are to be reckoned a
woman, an untouchable, a king, brahmins and others is clear proof that
distinctions of caste, sex or status did (???????? 18. ST. p. 128-129) not
matter to these saints, whose only qualifications were loving devotion and
complete self-surrender to God.
Tiruppan Alvar
Tirumangai Alvar
Tirumolis 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the 5th centum of the above work are
exclusively devoted to Srirangam. Each of the ten verses of the 4th Tirumoli
describes an achievement of Visnu in the first two lines and the natural
beauty of His shrine surrounded by the rivers and gardens in the next.
These verses very much resemble those of Tirumalisai Alvar in the
Tiruccandaviruttam, referring to Srirangam. In verse 5 of this Tirumoli
there 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 tall
houses, where are burnt the scented wood like the ‘aghil’, etc., and, on the
other, from the sacrificial fires kindled by the Vedic brahmanas’, thus
testifying to the fact that Srirangam was active and much advanced in both
the secular and religious spheres. Verse 9 again refers to the prakara walls.
The 5th Tirumoli is concerned with the familiar theme of the mother
sympathising with her lovelorn daughter. Here the Alvar exclaims that the
madness caused in the maiden by the God or Tiruvarangam could not
adequately explained. Verse 5 is typical of the rest. These verses again
resemble those of Nammalvar handling the same theme with reference to
Sriranganatha. In each verse of the 6th Tirumoli the Alvar describes an
achievement of Visnu, in one of His avatars and says that he saw Him at
Tennarangam. The Tirumolis 7 and 8 are likewise taken up by an enumeration
of the qualities and achievements of Visnu enshrined in Srirangam.
NEXT
PAGE
Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.
HISTORY
Events of Today
Histats
CHAPTER 4
From this point the Koil-Olugu begins a long and detailed recital of the
reforms introduced and the administrative arrangements made by Udayavar
in connection with the affairs of temple, while the Guruparamparai dismisses
these with a few generalised statements. From his gadi in the Ceran mutt in
the north street of the Trivikraman enclosure (i.e., the north Uttara
street) Udayavar assumed control over the administration of both the
darsana (doctrine) and the temple. He began with a thorough inspection of
the store-house and the treasury and daily made searching inquiries into the
routine expenditure involved and the rights claimed by the arcakas and
others with duties in the temple. This detailed investigation became
intolerable to some of the temple servants, one of whom coerced his wife to
serve poisoned food to Udayavar while on his daily rounds for begging alms.
The honest wife obeyed her husband but cleverly indicated to the begging
ascetic the nature of the alms by circumambulating him after having parted
with the aims, which was not her usual practice. Udayavar suspected
something and threw away the poisoned food. This is mentioned as an
instance and Udayavar had to face considerable opposition to his scheme of
purification. The Olugu says that consequently he left Srirangam and lived in
Tiruvellarai for two years. The better sense of the temple servants
ultimately prevailed and Tiruvarangapperumal Arayar fetched Udayavar back
to 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 his
schemes of reconstruction. Kurattalvan, the devout disciple of Udayavar,
was, however, able to bring Periya Koil Nambi to the right path. Nambi now
became the fervent disciple of Udayavar, under the name Amudan - well
known as Tiruvarangattamudanar - and composed the Ramanuja-nurrandadi, a
centum in praise of Ramanuja. He also surrendered his office as high priest
and 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 of
reconstruction unhindered. The following is a summary of the reforms and
administrative arrangements effected by him.
(1) He appointed Akalanga Nattalvan, his disciple, to inquire into the incomes
from the temple lands. The latter was a Cola chieftain, who is said to have
become a disciple of Udayavar after his return from Tiruvellarai. The
Nattalvan or Nadalvan is mentioned in several records of the time of
Rajadhiraja 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 he
had been actually a disciple of Udayavar he must have long survived him. It
is also likely that the chronicler of the Olugu made the local chieftain a
disciple of Udayavar to glorify the Acarya.
(2) The shrine of Dhanvantri, which had long been neglected and gone out of
use, was renovated and an image of Dhanvantri or the Divine Physician was
installed therein, taking advantage, it is said, of a slight indisposition of the
God caused by the offering of naval or jambu fruits and curd rice by
Mudaliyandan. He placed his disciple Garudavahana Bhatta in charge of the
shrine and made arrangements for the supply of milk and medicinal decoction
(kasaya) to the God every night. The institution of the Arogyasala or the
Dhanvantri shrine is even now remembered as one of the chief reforms of
Udayavar in the Srirangam temple. From his days the successive managers
of this shrine have been known by the title of Garudavahana Bhatta.11a (An
inscription of Kulottunga I (62 of 1892; SII. III.70) refers to Arayan
Garudavahan alias Kalingarayar.)
(3) He removed all the Vaikhanasa priests from the temple and firmly
established the system of worship described in the Parameswara samhita of
the Pancaratra agama. He created a new set of priests known as Bhagavata
Nambis.
(4) The condition of the different seals, viz. The Garuda seal and the seals of
the Discus (Cakra) and the Conch (Sankha), under whose authority many
rights were exercised, and the state of accounts of the temple were found
to be in great disorder. Udayavar caused a reshuffling of the ownership of
these seals; he kept the seal of the Discus to himself, left the seal of the
Conch under the control of the Bhagavata Nambis, and allowed the Garuda
seal to continue under the Talaiyiduvar or Stanattar. He also reorganised
the accounts and placed them under the control of two persons with distinct
duties.
(5) The most important reform he effected was the complete reorganisation of
the temple services and groups of temple servants. Before the days of
Udayavar all the duties connected with the temple were divided among five
groups of servants, viz., Kovanavar, Kodavar, Koduvaleduppar, Paduvar and
Talaiyiduvar. According to the Koil-Olugu these five groups were in existence
before the days of Tirumangaimannan.12 (KO.p.46-7) Having in mind,
perhaps, the rapidly growing volume of the temple services Udayavar divided
these 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. The
entire scheme came to be well known as Udayavar tittam.
(6) Certain important changes and additions were made in the procedure and
conduct of the annul adyayanotsava that added much lustre to the festival
as a whole. From the days of Tirumangai Alvar it was the custom for the
temple parijanas to fetch Nammalvar from the distant Tirunagari to witness
the Tiruvaimoli and other recitations during the above festival. Taking
advantage of the impossibility of bringing Nammalvar from Tirunagari on a
certain Adyayanotsava, perhaps due to heavy floods in the Kaveri, Udayavar
installed the image of Nammalvar in the Srirangam temple and stopped the
procedure of bringing the Alvar all the way from Tirunagari.
(7) He also installed in the temple the images of the Alvars, Andal and
Nathamuni and made arrangements for the celebration of many festivities in
their honour like taking them in procession to the Perumal on the days of
their natal asterims.
(8) He laid down extensive regulations with regard to the recitations of the
Divyaprabandas and in this he seems to have followed largely the lead of
Nathamuni. In his days a new addition was made to the Prabandam
collections and that was the Ramanuja-nurrandadi of 108 stanzas.
(10) He had the daily routine of temple worship conducted strictly according to
the injunctions of the Pacaratra Agama; made detailed arrangements for the
celebrations of all festivities for the Perumal and the Alvars, and conducted
the daily, fortnightly, monthly, annual, and the great utsavas or mahotsavas
with grandeur and thus glorified the name of Srirangam.
Meanwhile Udayavar had fully equipped himself with the Sastras and
scriptures the Vedanta and the Vaisnava darsana as the disciple of old
veterans in the field like Tirukkottiyur Nambi, Tirumalaiyandan,
Tiruvarangapperumal Arayar, Tirumalai Nambi and others. Then he
proceeded 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 of
that doctrine. With the help of Kurattalvan he wrote down his monumental
works, viz. The Sribhasyam, the Vedanta Dipam, the Vedanta-saram and
the Gita Bhasyam. Having achieved so far the guru wanted to commence a
tour of religious disputation - a digvijaya - and establish the supremacy of
the Vaisnava doctrine in all directions. With the permission of Periya Perumal
(the mula beram) of Srirangam he appointed Mudaliyandan to exercise
supreme control over the affairs of the temple, and started on such a tour
in the company of Kurattalvan. The Guruparamparai credits him with a tour
of all India. When he came to Tirupati there was dispute raging in that
shrine whether the God there was Visnu or Skanda. Udayavar appeared as
the arbiter and decided the case in favour of the Vaisnavas. Then he
returned to Srirangam, where he settled down once more as the head of the
Vaisnava darsana. Quite pleased with the way in which Mudaliyandan had
looked after the temple during his absence he reappointed him in the position
of supreme command over the temple affairs. “Thus was Udayavar
superintending and controlling the temple administration and the Vaisnava
doctrine for 60 caturmasas in the sacred shrine of Tiruvarangam, himself
being worshipped by 70 jiyas, 12,000 ekangis, 74 Acarya purusas and
innumerable Srivaisnavas.”13 (KO.p.104)
Though it is true to say that the Cola monarchs were ardent patrons
of Saivism it need not be concluded from this nor from the account of the
persecution of Ramanuja that there was a general persecution of the
Vaisnavas and the Vaisnava temples in the Cola period. From the Cola
inscriptions we know that they extended their patronage to both the Saiva
and Vaisnava temples. But kings were often victims to advisers and favourite
dogmas and sometimes the rule of general toleration was broken. There are
several 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 of
1938-39 (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 of
1938-39.) Another, dated in his 13th year, refers to Senapati
Virarajendra Adiyaman, who made a gift of land for a flower garden to the
temple.17 (118 of 1938-39) Two more military officers of the king figure
as donors in other records. One is Arigandadevan Ayarkolundinar alias
Senapatigal Ganagikondasola-Munaiyadarayar of Kottur in Arumolideva
Valanadu, 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 was
Senapatigal Vira Cola Munaiyadarayar, who made a grant of 50 kalanju of
gold for the recitation of the Tiruppalli-elucci and Tiruvaimoli by five
nimantakaras (temple servants).19 (61 of 1892.) This epigraph is dated in
the king’s 15th year. Another epigraph, dated in his 18th year, records the
provision of 6 ! kasu (gold pieces) made by Arayan Garudavahan alias
Kalingarayar for offerings on three nights when the text Tettarundiral20
(The second ‘ten’ of the Perumal Tirumoli by Kulasekhara Alvar begins with
these words.) was recited during the festivals in the months of Aippasi and
Panguni. The Malyala officers of the king, belonging to the Perudanam and
sirudanam, made a gift of a chauri called Ayiravan (with a gold handle) for
service to God Anantanarayanaswamin, who “was pleased to recline at
Srirangan”.21 (130 of 1938-39.) It is significant that a number of generals
and 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 account
of the Guruparamparai as the basis we can only conclude that the persecutor
of Ramanuja was not Adhirajendra but Kulottunga I. It was the audacious
statement 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 a
hagiographical invention, for the Guruparamparai tells us that the Alvan
regained his eyesight later on through divine beneficence. There is good
reason to believe that the account of persecution is highly exaggerated.
From inscriptions we know that Vikrama Cola spent a large part of the
state revenues derived in 1128 A.D. upon the Cidambaram temple by way of
structural additions and sumptuous benefactions. Nataraja of Cidambaram
was his family deity. The Koil Olugu says that the same king constructed the
5th 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 5th
enclosure, (2) a shrine for Rama in the southwest. (3) a shrine for Nacciyar
in the northwest, and (4) an installation of Garuda in the Peria Tirumantapa
in the 4th or Alinadan enclosure. The 5th enclosure of the temple is known
as Akalangan Tiruvidi, Akalangan being a title of Vikrama Cola. There is no
direct epigraphic confirmation of the above account. The Srirangam temple,
however, contains a single inscription of Parakesarivarman alias Tribhuvana
Vikrama Coladeva dated in his 16th year (1134 A.D.) A high regnal year not
met 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, was
alive). This simply records a private gift of land and throws no light on the
king’s interest in the temple. Yet it is significant to note that ‘Vikrama
Colacaturvedimangalam’ is mentioned in a few inscriptions of the later
Pandyas 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 the
Vaisnavas he tried to dissuade him from his evil intents but failed. After the
death of his father whose acts he very much repented, he came to the
Srirangam temple with the Cera and Pandya kings and made consultations
with them in the following strain: ‘Temples and their endowments have always
been governed by Brahmanas and there had been no royal encroachments. MY
father, who violated this rule, suffered terribly. Even now I will call back
Udayavar and in your presence hand over to him the entire authority over
the temple’. Sending Maronrilla Marathiyandan to fetch back Udayavar the
three kings returned to their respective cities. When the envoy returned
with Udayavar the Cola24 (The KO calls this Cola by the name Kulottunga
(p.108), probably a generic name for the kings of the dynasty of
KulottungaI.) rushed to Srirangam, handed over to Udayavar the control of
the 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 latter
willingly made him the disciple of his own disciple, Mudaliyandan to whom he
transferred the control of the temple, which had so long been administered
from the palace. The Koil Olugu ends this account by saying that Udayavar
caused these details to be inscribed on the wall of the Aryabhattal
gateway.25 (KO.pp.107-8) The Guruparamparai and the Divyasuricaritam
give no such account of a patronising Cola. It is not possible to justify this
story on epigraphical grounds.
Kulottunga II (1133-1150)
Kulottunga II, like his father, devoted his energies to the remodeling
and renovation of the Nataraja shrine at Cidambaram. Both his inscriptions
and the Kulottunga-Colan Ula of Ottakootar make prominent mention of his
activities on behalf of this shrine. In his zeal for Saivism he removed, in the
language of the Ula, the little God (Visnu) from the courtyard of the sacred
hall of Tillai.26 (Kulottunga-Colan Ula.11. 77-8) According to the Vaisnava
tradition Ramanuja heard of the desecration of the Govindaraja shrine at
Cidambaram, after he had returned from the Mysore country to
Srirangam.27 (The Koil-Olugu, however, says that Ramanuja installed the
Govindaraja image at Tirupati while he returned to Srirangam from Mysore.
This cannot be true if it is held that the Acarya returned to Srirangam soon
after 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 the
evidence of Ottakkootar.) He immediately proceeded to Tirupati, whither
the Vaisnavas of Cidambaram had escaped with the image of Govindaraja,
and installed it in a shrine there by the side of the older shrine of
Parthasarathy, whose image had become mutilated and hence unfit for
worship. The earliest record of Kulottunga II, which makes specific mention
of his activities at Cidambaram, comes from Tiruppurambiam and is dated in
his 7th year, i.e., 1140. The desecration of its image and its reconsecration
in a newly built shrine at Tirupati may roughly be assigned to this date.
Rajadhiraja II (1163-1178)
NEXT
PAGE
Chapter 5
Rajaraja III was less resourceful than his father and he was
defeated by the forces of Maravarman Sundara Pandya II (1238-51). His
feudatories began to assume independence. The Hoysala king, Narasimha II
(A.D.1220-35), championed the Cola cause against the Pandya and other
foes and led repeated expeditions into the Tamil country. One of these
occurred in 1221-22 and was directed against Srirangam.7 (EC VI
Cikmagalur, 56.) An inscription of his dated in S.1145 (A.D.1223) refers to
his victorious march against the Trikalinga kings.8 (EC V.Cannarayapatnam,
203.) It is certain that about this date Nirasimha did not lead an expedition
to the Kalinga kingdom. That the Odras or the forces from Kalinga or Orissa
were in occupation of the Srirangam temple in 1223-25 is known from an
inscription 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 (53
of 1193; SII IV.500.) Hence it is possible to infer that Narasimha II
marched in 1222 upon Srirangam against the Eastern Kalinga forces, who
were probably advancing against the same shrine about that year. But we
have no knowledge of the sequel though Narasimha’s inscription refers to his
pursuit of the Trikalinga kings “penetrating their train of elephants displaying
unequalled valour.” The Odras were expelled by the Pandya forces ultimately
as is known from the inscription of Maravarman Sundara Pandya, which is
also of immediate interest to us. It runs thus.
The ‘ten persons’ (the heads of the ten groups of temple servants),
who were governing the temple from ancient times, joined with the Oddas
and collected Oddukasu (a levy for the Oddas) from the temple and the
nimamakaras. They also gave the Oddas paddy from the temple lands and in
various other ways destroyed the property of the temple. As a result one
day’s provision for the temple had to be utilised for many days; and on
certain days puja was not celebrated at all. Thus was the temple worship
intercepted for about 300 days in the last two years. These ‘ten persons’
appropriated to themselves the temple lands in various localities and shared
the yields (including taxes) with the Oddas. Thus the temple worship was
interfered with and the property of the Sribhandara (the treasury of the
temple) squandered away. The temple servants were impoverished. This gave
rise to loud complaints and protests. Now the regime of the Oddas is over
and our Samantanar (Senapatis, i.e., the Pandya generals) have taken
possession of the temple as belonging to the rightful government. The landed
properties were all restored and all the temple services were properly
conducted. The persons responsible for the above wrongs were dismissed
from the temple.
Sundara Pandya seems to have first dealt with his neighbour, the
Cera, 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. He
defeated the Hoysalas, who suffered a terrible rout losing many of their
valiant generals, treasure, elephants, horses, etc. The fortress of Kannanur
was stormed. When the Hoysala forces began to withdraw towards their
mountain plateau, i.e., Mysore, according to the inscription of this king at
Tiruppunduritti (Tanjore dt.), dated in his 7th year (1258), he desisted
from pursuit.29 (166 of 1894; SII. V.459.) This record gives the prasasti
or meikkirti of the Pandya. According to it he visited, at the close of his
victorious campaign, the famous Saiva shrine at Cidambaram and worshipped
God Nataraja. From Cidambaram he proceeded to Srirangam where he wore
the garland of victory (vagai), which contained in it margosa flowers from the
groves in Uraiyur (Koli), and made rich endowments to the temple by
performing many a time the ceremony of tulabhara or ‘ascending the scales’
against jewels and pearls. He roofed with gold the temple of Visnu, in which
He reclines on the thousand-hooded Ananta and which is watered by the twin
rivers. And in that temple he sat with his queen upon a luxuriously jewelled
throne, wearing a golden crown and resembling the morning sun rising on the
top of the eastern hill. Poets and scholars sang his praises. His queen
Ulagamulududaiyal (‘who possessed all the world’) was attended on either side
by the queens of other kings, fanning her with fly-whisks and singing her
praises.30 (Ibid.)
The Hoysala forces under Somesvara attempted to recover Kannanur
but the king was defeated and killed in a battle fought near Srirangam
sometime in 1263-64.31 (Somesvara’s death is assigned to 1263, which is
the latest regnal year cited in his inscriptions, (cf. 34 of 1891). Already (in
1254) he had divided his kingdom among his two sons Ramanatha and
Narasimha III. The long Sanskrit record of Sundara Pandya at Srirangam
(45 of 1891) opens with the statement: ‘Having caused to long for the other
world that Moon of Karnata (Hoysala Somesvara), by whom this lotus pond of
Sriranga had been reduced to a pitiable state, (and) reinstating in this
(lotus-pond of Sriranga) the goddess Laksmi, who is worshipped in the three
worlds-king Sundara Pandya rose full of brilliancy like the sun’.) The double
triumph over the Hoysalas and other triumphs over the Kadava chief of
Sendamangalam, the Telugu Codas of Nellore and their allies placed in the
hands of the Pandya enormous booty and treasure, e.g., his Srirangam
epigraph says that he plundered the capital of the Kataka (Kadava) king,
took a garland of emeralds and offered it to God Ranganatha. His
inscriptions testify to the fact that the enormous booty, which he thus
acquired, was lavishly spent upon the Saiva and Vaisnava temples at
Cidambaram and Srirangam.
NEXT
PAGE
Chapter 6
The rulers of the region were the Pandya princes. The Srirangam
temple contains inscriptions of Sundara Pandya (acc.1303) and Maravarman
Kulasekhara (acc.1314) extending over the period 1313-19. They deal with
the foundation of Kodandarama-caturvedimangalam in Srirangam. The mutual
rivalries among the Pandya princes invited the intervention of the
neighbouring Ravivarman Kulasekhara, the Cera. We have the inscriptions of
this king in the Srirangam temple ranging from 1312 to 1315. These
register his settlement of Brahmanas in yet another colony in his own name in
Srirangam, viz., Ravivarma-caturvedimangalam. Towards the end of the
chapter is given an account of the Vaisnava Acaryas, who both administered
the darsana and controlled the temple of Srirangam. This covers the period
from Bhattar (the successor of Ramanuja) to Vedantadesika, roughly from
1150 to 1324.
To the Muslim historians the Tamil country was known as, Ma’bar
(meaning in arabic ‘passage’ or ‘ferry’ and to foreign travelers like Marco
Polo signified the coastline with it shinter land in South India, extending,
from ‘Kulam (Quilon) to Nilawar (Nellore)’. The frontiers of Ma’bar were
reached by the armies of Malik Kafur on the 15 March 1311. In Ma’bar
things did not happen as he would have liked. The Pandya chieftains, under
the command of Vira Pandya took to guerilla tactics. There were no pitched
battles, no sieges of forts and Kafur could not capture Vira Pandya and
impose on him his usual humiliating conditions. This caused no small irritation
to Kafur and he spent his wrath on the ancient and glorious temples of South
India by giving full reins to his iconoclastic zeal.
It is well known that Malik Kafur’s Ma’bari expedition was, from the
beginning to the end, a political failure; for not only did he not succeed in
defeating 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 Maravarman
Kulasekhara II (acc.1268). He defeated Kafur in a battle and the latter
retired for good, taking with him the booty that he had plundered in the
course of his vandalistic march. This victory, however, did not improve the
position of the Pandyas, whose feuds continued as of old. So far at the
Srirangam temple was concerned pujas and festivals were once again started
and celebrated with the help of the substitute utsava-bera of Ranganatha
called by the Koil-Olugu Tiruvaranga-maligaiyar, i.e., the God of the
Srirangam temple.
The dominant figure on the stage of South Indian politics after Malik
Kafur’s invasion was Ravivarman Kulasekhara alias Sangramadhira. From his
Kanci and Srirangam epigraphs we know that he was born in S.1188
(A.D.1266), that he married a Pandya princess, became supreme over
Kerala when he was 33 years old (1299), defeated Vira Pandya and
extended his sway over the Pandya and Cola countries, and crowned himself
king 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 tutelary
deity, and we also find inscriptions of Sundara Pandya (acc.1303) of the
same period (1312-15) in the Srirangam temple, which show that the
relationship between these two in this period was one of friendship. An
inscription in the Srirangam temple of the 9th year of Perumal Sundara
Pandya (1312) registers that on the representation made by several persons
Ravivarman Kulasekhara, called here Venattadigal, (the king of Venad) made
a gift of sites, after purchase, to the temple of Ravinarayana Perumal and
to several bhattas colonising the village Ravivarma-Caturvedimangalam newly
founded 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 this
occasion, was perhaps on the eve of his coronation at Kanci the same
year.16 (40 of 1936-37.) We have three Tamil records of Ravivarman
Kulasekhara in the Srirangam temple. In these he assumes the familiar Cola
and Pandya titles Tribhuvanacakravartin and Konerimaikondan. As king he is
seen making further gifts to his colony in Srirangam and endowments to the
temple of Ravinarayana Perumal consecrated therein by him. Of the three
records one is dated in his 3rd year (1315.) 17 (39 of 1936-37.) It
records a tax-free gift of 25 velis of land in the village of Todaiyur,
Nattunangudi and Malavanur on the northern bank of the Kaveri (Vadakarai
Rajarajavalanadu) for the Caturvedimangalam and the temple. Another is
dated in his 4th year (1316.)18 (37 of 1936-37.) It registers a remission
of taxes on 5 velis of lands granted to the bhattas of Ravivarma-
Caturvedimangalam. In this epigraph it is stated that the agrahara and the
temple therein were founded in the 3rd year of the king (1315). This means
that he had purchased the sites and bestowed them upon the bhattas and
made other arrangements for the formation of a colony in his name in 1312
under the authority of Sundara Pandya and that the agrahara and the
temple received official recognition only in 1315 when he was king. The other
inscription, also dated in his 4th year, says that the order (terippu)
communicating the royal sanction to the gift mentioned in the above epigraph
was issued while the king was camping at Kannanur.19 (38 of 1936-37.) The
Sanskrit inscription of Ravivarman Kulasekhara in the Srirangam temple may
be assigned to 1315-16, during which year he seems to have stayed in
Srirangam, where he is said to have made “an abode of the God” and to have
given “a delightful residence” to the God.20 (46 of 1891; EI. IV.; p.148)
Obviously this refers to the foundation of the Ravivarma Caturvedimangalam
and the consecration of Ravinarayana Perumal therein. He is also said to
have performed a dipotsava for Ranganatha and to have provided for the
distribution of 100 panas each to 50 learned men every year on the
asterism Satabisaj.
During the interval between Malik Kafur’s raid (1311) and the
expedition of Ulugh Khan (1323) the political conditions of Ma’bar remained
unchanged. The civil war between Sundara Pandya and Vira Pandya continued.
An army of Hoysala Ballala III came to the help of Vira Pandya and was
defeated (1318). Sundara Pandya himself had been defeated by Ravivarman
Kulasekhara in a battle (c.1316) and the Kerala ruler was triumphantly ruling
from Kanci but his own success was short-lived. An inscription in the
Srirangam temple of Kakatiya Prataparudra, dated S.1239 (A.D.1317)
states that his commander Devari Nayaka, son of Macya Nayaka, marched
with an army to the south against the Panca Pandyas, defeated Vira Pandya
and the Malayala-Tiruvadi Kulasekhara at Tiruvadikundram and established
Sundara Pandya at Vira Dhavalam in Uraiyur-Kurtam. The last two lines of
this record are highly damaged and suggest some sarvamanya (rent-free)
gift (of land), evidently to God Ranganatha, details of which are lost.29 (79
of 1938-39; pt.II para 8. Devari Nayudu or Nayaningaru was a general of
Muppidi Nayaka.)
Ulugh Khan’s expedition (1323) and the second sack of the Srirangam
temple.
temple.
Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlak (1320-25) realised the futility of seeking to
maintain the allegiance of distant provinces by occasional military raids, and
decided not only to conquer the entire peninsula of South India but to impose
over every part of it effective military and administrative control. He made
Ulugh Khan, his eldest son and heir to the throne, the commander of an
expeditionary force, which first put down a rebellion in Maharastra and then
marched upon Warangal. The attack on Warangal failed (1321). Next year
another expedition was organised and Prataparudra, who did not expect it,
was surprised and defeated. Warangal fell. In 1323 Ulugh Khan marched
against Ma’bar. The Maduraittalavaralaru and the Madurai-stanikar-varalaru
mention Ani of Rudhirodgari as the month and year of the Muslim invasion
(June 1323), though they furnish wrong saka dates, viz., S.1246, Aksaya
as the year of the Muslim invasion. Aksaya corresponds to Saka 1248 and
not 1249. The Sriranga Narayana Jiyar Guruparamparai gives the correct
date for this invasion, viz., S.1245 (A.D.1323).
all secreted and saved some how on the first occasion and that this gave
rise in due course to the stories of Pincentravalli the Kodavar.
Direct control was exercised over Ma’bar from Delhi between the
years 1324 and 1334. In the latter year the governor with headquarters at
Madurai, declared himself independent and thus founded the Kingdom of
Ma’bar. This kingdom or the Sultanate of Madurai was extinguished by the
rising tide of Vijayanagar in 1378. Parts of the kingdom had already been
overrun, eg., Srirangam had been taken in 1371 and the temple restored.
Ramanuja to Vedantadesika
Under the inspiring leadership of Nampillai his chief two disciples, viz.,
Periya Accan Pillai and Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar, did two signal services to
the cause of the Prabanda school. Periya Accan Pillai is famous as the
veteran commentator, of the ‘Four thousand sacred prabandas’ or the
Nalayiradivya-prabandam, and his compilation called ‘the 24,000’ was based
on the Prabanda lectures of his teacher. Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar’s
contribution to the cause of the Tenkalai school was even more substantial.
He wrote out a Guruparamparai or a succession list of Acaryas, which
claimed for Nampillai’s teachings all the sanctity and veneration of a creed
professed by a line of Acaryas and thus gave a traditional or Apostolic
basis, without which no doctrine could command any hearing in the medieval
days, 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 prominence
to the Prabanda teaching and teachers and omitted all mention of the
orthodox and Sanskrit school and their activities in Kanchipuram. The Jiyar
gives the date Kali 4308 or A.D.1207 for the birth of Nampillai, who
appears to have lived upto A.D.1302, for he is credited with a life of 95
years.
Srirangam, thus giving rise to the geographical factor of the split among the
Vaisnavas. This might have been due to several causes. For one thing
Kanchipuram was the native home of Varadacarya. Probably the vociferous
activities of Nampillai and his redoutable disciples caused him considerable
embarassment and he might have withdrawn to Kanchipuram guided by his own
inclination and convenience. It is also said that his particular devotion to God
Varadaraja of Kanchipuram was the cause of the transfer of headquarters.
Whatever the cause the result was quite manifest. All scholars, who
believed in the orthodox and traditional school flocked under the banners of
Varadacarya at Kanchipuram, leaving Nampillai and his disciples at Srirangam
quite free to propagate their own protestant school of Vaisnavism. The
latter protested against the exclusive, too orthodox and unduly ritualistic
tendencies visible in the efforts of the traditional followers of Ramanuja, and
advocated a “more popular, less ritualistic, and more devotional creed”. They
condemned the rigidity of the caste system and advocated a democratic
basis for the Vaisnava religion. The result was obvious. In course of time
Kanchipuram came to be identified with the Sanskrit and traditional school of
the Bhasya, and Srirangam with the Tamil and popular school of the
Prabanda. For all practical purposes, say by 1247, when Nampillai was forty
and Varadacarya eighty-two, the parties had begun; but it has to be clearly
understood that the partisan spirit, which brought into being two
irreconcilable sects called the Vadakalai and the Tenkalai made its
appearance only in the 15th century and later.44 (For some of the wrong
explanations of the origin of this split by western scholars see
V.Rangachari’s article (op.cit.) p.109, n.1.)
It was not in the nature of things that the party of Pillai Lokacarya
and his brother Alagiyamanavala Perumal Nainar should have looked upon the
rising popularity of Vedantadesika with equanimity. Many incidents of petty
conflict and heart-burning are related in the Guruparamparai. The upshot of
the growing discontent on the part of the Tenkalai party at Srirangam was a
challenge thrown at Vedantadesika by Alagiyamanavala Perumal Nainar; the
latter proclaimed that Desika could retain his title Kavitarkikasimha only if
he undertook to compose, in a competition with himself a 1000 verses on the
Lord in the course of a single night. Vedantadesika joined the competition
and easily completed, we are told, a 1000 verses on the sandals of God, well
known as the Paduka-sahasram before it was dawn, while his rival could
finish only 300 verses on the feet of God. Above all Vedantadesika’s position
in Srirangam could not be weakened because he was as strong on the
Prabanda side as on the Bhasya. He is credited with a monumental
commentary on the Divyaprabandas called the ‘74000’, which, if it had been
actually written, is lost irretrievably to the scholars of the present day.
The collection of his beautiful Tamil verses on the Prabandas, called the
Desikaprabandam and many short treatises on the Mantra, the Dvaya, the
caramasloka and the Gita, however are a standing testimony to his
proficiency on the Prabanda side of the Vaisnava lore.
From the above account it is clear that the Srirangam temple had
developed, on the eve of the Muslim invasion (of 1323), into a great centre
of peaceful and progressive religious and literary activity and supplied
inspiration to some of the leading lights among the Vaisnavas of the age to
compose works of intense religious fervour and devotion. The Muslims under
Ulugh Khan descended upon Srirangam like a whilwind in 1323, massacred a
helpless ‘army’ of 12,000 ascetics that were guarding the shrine and
occupied the temple, which at once ceased to be a place of worship and
became instead a scene of intense desolation and gloom. The party of Pillai
Lokacarya, who it may be supposed had greater control over the
administration of the temple took immediate charge of the images of the God
and the Goddess and fled in a southern direction for safety. Vedantadesika
himself fled to Satyamangalam on the Kaveri (sometimes identified with a
place called Satyagalam, near Kollegal), with the single manuscript of the
Srutaprakasika of the aged Sudarsanacarya of the Kuram family and his two
little sons, Vedacarya Bhatta and Parasara Bhatta.47 (From Satyamangalam
little sons, Vedacarya Bhatta and Parasara Bhatta.47 (From Satyamangalam
married the niece of Kapaya Nayaka, the Telugu chief, who played a leading
role in freeing Warangal and the neighbouring tracts from the Muslim yoke as
early as 1330.51 (N.Venkataramanayya, Early Muslim Expansion in South
India, pp.169-72.) Mummadi became a disciple of Parasara Bhatta VII
(i.e., the seventh in descent from Parasara Bhatta I or Kurattalvan, the
well known disciple of Ramanuja) when the latter had gone over to the
Telingadesa. The village was granted to him as Gurudaksina. Kurattalvan alias
Srivatsacihna Misra had two sons Parasara Bhatta and Rama Misra. Rama
Misra’s son was Vagvijaya Bhatta alias Naduviltiruvidi Pillai Bhattar. His son
was Vedavyasa alias Sudarsana Bhatta, the author of the Srutaprakasika.
He had two sons Vedacarya Bhatta and Parasara Bhatta, the later of whom
figures as the donee of this epigraph. Mummadi assumed the title
Srirangavardhana probably in commenmoration of his having become the pupil
of Parasara Bhatta of Srirangam. An inscription dated in A.D.1353 from
Korukonda refers, in confirmation of the Srirangam copper plates, to
Mummadi and Parasara Bhatta as pupil and teacher.52 (EI XIV, p.84; ARE
1913, Pt.II, para 71.)
the Saivas of Jambukesvaram, rescued the images of the Perumal and the
Nacciyar from being swept away by a swift current in the Kaveri in the
course of a float festival in the month of Adi, constructed firm embankments
of the Kaveri and stopped the havoc caused to parts of Srirangam by
occasional floods in the river, dug out a huge tank to the west of the temple
for conducting the float festival, repaired various parts of the temple and
installed 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 the
inhabitants of Srirangam, who were eager to associate him with the
responsible headship of the temple. According to the arrangements,
established by Udayavar, however, the descendents of Mudaliyandan were
exercising control over the administration of the temple. But Periya
Varadacaryar alias Periya Ayi, the great grandson of Mudaliyandan, who was
then exercising the Srikaryam, understood the popular wish and willingly took
Kuranarayana Jiyar into the service of the temple and assigned to him
certain duties and also the Pallavarayan mutt. In course of time the Jiyar,
known as Sriranganarayana Jiyar, acquired considerable power and prestige
in the temple organisation as well as control over the religious code. His was
an office elected by the temple parijanas and not a hereditary one.54 (It is
not possible to reconcile the divers accounts of the local chronicles regarding
the foundation of the gadi of Sriranganarayana Jiyar. Since the Koil-Olugu
and the Annan Tirumaligai Olugu make him the contemporary of Periya Ayi,
the great grandson of Mudaliyandan and grand father of Srirangarajanathan
Vaduladesika, the manager of the temple during the invasion of 1323, he
may be assigned to the 13th century.
NEXT
PAGE
Chapter 7
(Verse 2) Having carried Rangaraja, the Lord of the World, from the slope
of the Vrishabagiri (mountain) to his capital (Chenchi), having slain by his
army the proud Tulushka soldiers having made the site of Sriranga united
with the golden age (Krita yuga), and having placed there this (God) together
with Lakshmi and the earth, - the Brahmana Gopana duly performs like the
lotus-born (Brahma) the worship which has to be practiced”. The Koil-Olugu
quotes this inscription and says that Gopana, who was one of the officers of
Harihararaya (Harihara II), with his residence at Cenci or Gingee (South
Arcot district), once came to Tirupati, where the images of the God and the
Goddess of Srirangam had been kept for safety. This general, who was a
Brahmana, took the images to Singapuram near Gingee, where he housed
them in the local shrine for sometime. Narasimhadeva alias Singappiran, who
was playing the part of the agent of the Muslims at Srirangam, watched the
development carefully and opened secret negotiations with Gopana at
Singapuram. Thus apprised of the strength of the Muslim garrison at
Kannanur Gopana came with a large force and inflicted severe defeat on the
Muslims (i.e. the army of Alauddin Sikander Shah, the last Sultan of
Madurai).3 (According to the Prapannamritam Sriranganatha appeared to
Gopana in a dream and exhorted him to strike against the Muslims and
restore Him to Srirangam.) Perhaps a great battle, of which we have no
account, was fought at Kannanur and this Muslim stronghold of Ma’bar was
wrested once for all from the hands of the enemy. Gopana brought the
images from Singapuram and reinstalled them in Srirangam on the 17th of
Vaikasi in the year Paridap, S.1293. This corresponds with Virodhakrit and
not 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, placing
Ranganatha together with Laksmi and the Earth (Sri and Bhu in His own town
(Srirangam) again duly performed excellent worship”. According to the
Prapannamritam the verses in the inscription were composed by
Vedantadesika, who returned to Srirangam from his exile and witnessed in
great delight the reconsecration of the images. The Guruparamparai says
that Vedantadesika breathed his last in Kali 4470 or A.D.1368. Laying too
much emphasis on the traditional dates (which credit Desika with a life of
100 years, i.e., from Kali 4370 to Kali 4470) some scholars have come
forward to question the date of this inscription, may the validity of the
epigraph itself, which is said to be unusual in character; Vedantadesika, who
died in 1368, we are told, could not have witnessed the reconsecration and
composed the verses in praise of Gopana in 1371. Hence the restoration of
the 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 on
the basis of tradition. Either Vedantadesika did not compose the verses or
he 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 activity
before his death, during which period he wrote his famous
Rahasyatrayasara, elaborately explaining the doctrine of self-surrender. For
the sake of convenience we may assume that Vedantadesika died in 1380;
and sticking to tradition, which credits him with a hundred years, his life
may be said to have extended from 1280 to 1380.
Mudaliyandan
Mudaliyandan
Kandadai Andan
Kandadai Tolappa
Srirangaraja Nathan
Vaduladesika2
Narasimhadesika alias
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. They
returned during the administration of Elaikkarai-nilaiyitta Uttamanambi.
After Saluva Tirumalairaja established his own right against the agent
of the Raya in 1471 Tirumalainatha Uttamanambi is said to have
reconstructed the shrine of Laksminarayana Perumal on the banks of the
Punaga tirtam and to have offered a capra of ivory for the Perumal. On the
night 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 is
said, was sheltered from rain in the threshold of the house of Uttamanambi,
who worshipped the god along with his people and bequeathed all his property
to the temple. From that year he provided for the Perumal being taken in a
palanquin on the third day of the Panguni festival.74 (Ibid., pp.160-161.)
NEXT
PAGE
Copyright © 2005-2007 www.thiruvarangam.com, All rights reserved.
HISTORY
Events of Today
Chapter 8
M
The effect of state-control upon the temple administration
E
N
U The century and a half of rule of the members of the first (Sangama)
dynasty (1350-1490) saw the restoration of the Srirangam temple from
Muslim occupation as also the slow and gradual process of reorganisation
under the aegis of a family of temple managers called the Uttamanambis,
who proved to be the men of the moment. By their tireless activities a
number of villages were added on to the Sribhandara and the temple became
richer and richer. With the help of the numerous royal and private
benefactors many of the damages that parts of the temple and suffered as
a result of the Muslim raids and occupation for nearly half a century (1311
and 1323-1371) were repaired in course of time. The Uttamanambi-
vamsaprabhavam records that the number of villages owned by the temple at
this period was 292. Notwithstanding the reconsecration of the god
Alagiyamanavalan and the restoration of worship in the temple by the early
Vijayanagar chieftains in 1371 the chronicler in the Koil-Olugu feels sorry
that the Hindu resurrectionists did not care to revive and maintain the code
of regulations established by Udayavar, but carried on the administration of
the temple under the immediate supervision of their own officers and agents,
who disregarded the hereditary chiefs of the temple, like the decendants of
Mudaliyandan, the nominee of Udayavar, and encouraged their own favourites
and created some new offices. The local governors of the Vijayanagar
empire, it is said, constantly interfered in the affairs of the temple as a
result of which many headships arose leading to a considerable diversification
of the temple groups and their services. Says the Olugu, “At the time when
the Cera, Cola and Pandyan kingdoms were ruled over by a single king, and
later on, when three different kings ruled over the three kingdoms, right up
to the year S.1249, Aksya, kings refrained from ruling over the lands that
had been granted to temples and Brahmanas, which were under the control
of the Brahmanas themselves. The kings interfered only to investigate into
misdeeds and punish wrongdoers. Afterwards, when the Muhammadans
invaded the country and laid waste the endowments to temples and
Brahmanas, the Perumal, left Srirangam for various other shrines where He
resided temporarily. On the 17th of Vaikasi in the year Paridapi S.1293,
the Perumal returned to Srirangam. After this date all these kingdoms
passed under the control of the Raya, the Narpati. The Raya and the
various Durgadipatis gave many pieces of land back so the temple as gifts.
They appointed their own men as accountants and superintendents of the
temple as if it were an item of royal administration from the place.
Kandadai Ramanujadasa
The Koil-Olugu says that Vira Narasimha, the first king of the second
or Saluva dynasty, had an elder brother by name Ramaraja, who was well
learned in the sastras and who became a saint. He was an ardent devotee of
Anjaneya. In the course of his pilgrimage he went to Ayoddhi, where he
obtained Srirama’s gold coins (1/2 pagodas) and the sparsavedi (a mythical
weapon that destroys at touch). He returned to the capital, offered a
Rama’s coin to his brother and obtained from him a royal order to the effect
that he should be allowed to exercise full control over all the Vaisnava
shrines situated in the empire. With this authority he first went to Tirupati
Tirumalai and brought the shrines of Tirumalai Perumal under his control.
After visiting other shrines he came and settled in Srirangam in S.1411 or
A.D.1489. He became a fervent disciple of Kandadai Annan under the
dasyanama Kandadai Ramanujadasa. He is credited with the reorganisation of
the temple affairs and repairs and reconstruction of parts of the temple.2
(Ibid., pp.164.171.) More than 20 inscriptions in the Tirumalai Tirupati
temples, ranging between the dates 1465 and 1495 refers to Kandadai
Ramanuja Aiyangar.3 (Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanam Inscriptions, vols.II
and 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, who
perhaps regarded him as his guru. From inscriptions and literature it is
known that Saluva Narasimha’s elder brother was called Timmaraja but he
was not a saint and is not known as Kandadai Ramanujadas. The suffix
Aiyangar occurring in inscriptions is perhaps an honorific.
The above inscriptions show that the administration of the temple had
settled down under royal, authority and patronage and that there was
neither excessive official interference nor oppressive exactions.
NEXT
PAGE
Chapter 9
The earliest inscription dated 1544 registers the gift of the income
from two villages Viramanallur and Kumaramangalam for the provision of
pulugu-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 village
Marudur in Paccil-kurram in Malainadu, a sub-division of Vadakarai
Rajarajavalanadu, in Thiruchirapalli-usavadi by Vitthaladeva Maharaja son of
Timmarayadeva Maharaja for the provision of offerings and worship to the
god Sriranganatha at Tiruvaranagam Tiruppati, valanadu.6 (8 of 1936-37;
pt.II, para 62) Vitthaladeva and Cinna Timma were cousin of Ramaraja and
these were sent on a southern expedition to quell the aggressive tendencies
of the king of Travancore and the political as well as the prosletyzing
activities of the Portuguese missionaries established on the Travancore
coast. The inscription further states that Vitthala defeated some
Kuravanniyar and reopened the Srirangam temple which had been closed for
sometime and revived worship therein. It is difficult to find out who exactly
were the Kuravanniyar which may mean ‘petty chieftains’ whom Vitthala
defeated and whose hostile activities had necessitated the closing of the
Srirangam temple for some time. The Koil-Olugu does not refer to any such
incident. At this time Visvanatha Nayak was ruling over Tiruccirapalli as the
viceroy of the Raya and he would not have suffered any major enemy to
exist by his side. As the very name indicates the Kurunilamannar or
Kuravanniyar were perhaps some of the petty estate holders or polegars
recognised by Visvanatha Nayaka for purposes of local government and
military organisation. It may also be stated that Manniyar or Vanniar figure
among the victims of Acyutaraya in the course of his southern expeditions in
his inscriptions as well as the Acyutarayabhyudayam. Vitthala placed his gift
of land in charge of Parasarabhatta Singaiyangar for conducting a
Ramanujakutam at Srirangam. Vitthala’s other gifts to the Srirangam temple
are enumerated in another inscription, which gives the genealogy of
Vitthaladeva Maharaja and his conquests and achievements.7 (11 of 1936-
37) He is said to have overrun all the dominious in the peninsula south of
Vijayanagara with the help of his brother Chinna Timma. He made a number
of benefactions to the temple such as providing for the daily sahasranama
puja 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. An
elder brother of his by name Nalla Timma is stated to have made a
Candraprabha-vahana in silver for the god while Ahobala Dikshita of
Krishnapuram made a present of a Suryaprabha in gold. Vitthala is said to
have planted pillars of victory at Anantasayanam, Kanyakumari and
Ramasetu.
The next inscription dated 1549 registers a gift of the village called
Cintamani to Srisailapurnacarya Tatacarya alias Auvukku Tiruvenkataiyanagar
by Ramaraj, for worship and offerings to the god in the manner in which
they were conducted in the time of Nalantigal Narayana Jiyar (i.e.,
Kuranarayana Jiyar) for the merit of himself and the king. This inscription
also refers to the erosion of the river Kaveri into Srirangam and also refers
to the erosion of the river Kaveri into Srirangam and its diversion near
Cintamani, in the time of a Cola king and the compensation in land in the
village Kolakkattai granted to the brahmanas of Cintamani. It may be pointed
out, here, that Kuranarayana Jiyar is said to have saved the Srirangam
temple from the floods of the Kaveri by effecting a diversion near
Cintamani, a village near Thiruchirapalli.8 (KO.p.118) The next inscription,
dated 1551, registers a gift of the income of the village Uttamasolanallur in
Manappidinadu, a sub-division of Tirucirappalli-asavadi, for offerings to the
god Sriranganatha, by Narapparaja, son of Mahamandalesvara Nandyala
Narasingaraja.9 (66 of 1936-37; pt.II, page 85) This inscription also
refers to a previous gift of a portion of the income from the same village
for a feeding house conducted by Siru-Tirumalaiyangar, son of Talappakkam
Periya Tirumalaiyangar at Srirangam. Narapparaja was the grandson of
Singarayya, the first member of the Nandyala family, ruling over Nandyal in
the Kurnool district. The donee was one of Talapakkam poets, who composed
many panegyries in Sanskrit and Telugu on the god Sri Venkatesa of
Tirupati.10 (T.T.D.Epigraphical Report, pp.284-85) The next inscription
dated 1553 registers the gift of the village Matteri in Kuruttadalaisirmai by
Krishnamman, wife of Peria Timma, son of Ramaraja Timmaraja of Arvidu,
for offerings to the god Ranganatha and for feeding Srivaisnavas in the
Kandai Annan Ramanujakutam at Srirangam.11 (93 of 1937-38) Another
inscription of the same year registers a gift of lands, after purchase, by a
certain Singa-Gangaya, son of Nagu-setty of the Nedunkumara gotra, for
offerings on Fridays.12 (58 of 1936-37) Still another record of the same
year registers the gift of the villages Pasaru in Vallanadu, a sub-division of
Tirupparuttisirmai, and Sembiyankalar, by Ramaraja, a son of Ramaraja of
Jagaraja Aravidu, for conducting festivals in the temple in the month of
Vaikasi.13 (94 of 1937-38)
Purandaradasa:
There are a few inscriptions in the Srirangam temple spread over the
period 1572-1612 covering these two reigns. The reign of Sriranga I was
not effective owing to internal discords. It is significant that his name does
not occur in the inscriptions in the temple belonging to his reign while Venkata
II or Venkatapatideva Maharaya, the last great ruler of Vijayanagar, is
mentioned in a few records. The names of the Nayak viceroys are also
mentioned. The earliest of these is dated 1574.22 (103 of 1938-39) It
records the gift of a village in Venpattu-sirmai by Ravasam Tirumalaiyan, son
of Timmappar of the Gautama gotra, to Sriranganatha for food offerings.
The next dated 1583 records an endowment of money entrusted to Tirumalai
Tiruvengada-Tattaiyangar Tirumalaiyangar by Jagadapirayar, son of Annama
Nayaka for feeding Srivaisnava in the Ramanujakutam in Srirangam.23 (91 of
1936-37) The next, dated 1590, registers a similar endowment of 70
varahan entrusted to the same person by Krisnappa Nayaka, son of
Adattaraya of the Visnuvardhana gotra, for feeding eight Vaisnavas daily in
the temple.24 (90 of 1936-37) Another inscription dated in the same year
mentions Venkatapatideva Maharaya as king.25 (79 of 1936-37) It records
an endowment in money by a certain Cenna-raja, son of Tirumalaiyan of
Pattikondai, for offerings during the monthly festival in the shrine of
Paramapadanathan. The next inscription dated 1592 registers a gift of land
by purchase in Kilai Perungavur, alias Lakkanadanayakapuram, in the eastern
portion of Malainadu in Rajaraja valanadu on the northern bank of the Kaveri
in tiruccirappali-savadi by Nadiminti Kondu-setty, Mulangi Timmu-setti and
others for the service of the chanting of the Iyarpa in the temple (during
the 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 records
sale of house-sites by two brahmanas of the temple to the Nayaka of
Tanjore, Acyutappa, son of Sevappa, for establishing a Ramanujakutam. The
next dated 1597 registers gift of land by purchase by Peddana Nayaka
Kasturi Rangappa Nayaka of Thiruchirapalli for providing offerings and
worship to the god of Srirangam during the Citrapaurnami festival.28 (99 of
1938-39) The donor was probably a kinsman of the contemporary Nayak of
Madurai, Krishnappa Nayak II (1595-1601).29 (The Koil-Olugu gives a list
of Nayaka rulers and one of the early Nayaks, according to this list, is
Kasturi Rangappa. He is said to have ruled for seven days only)
Inscriptions belonging to the period of Rama IV, Venkata III and Sriranga
III
Tirumala Nayak was succeeded by Muttu Virappa II, who ruled only
for a few months in 1659. The next ruler of Madurai was Cokkanatha. His
reign of more than twenty years was marked by wars and internal
disturbances, which were often accompanied by famine and pestilence. The
Jesuit missionaries, in their letters written from Thiruchirapalli, Madurai and
other places, give lurid accounts of the disturbances and the consequent
misery spread throughout the countryside.54 (The Nayaks of Madura,
op.cit., pp.274-76, 284-85, etc.) The phantom of the Vijayanagar empire
had disappeared. The feud between the Nayaks of Madurai and Tanjore
continued. The Sultans of Bijapur and Golconda were sending their armies
southward in the wake of the disappearance of the Hindu imperial power.
The Muslims had captured Vellore and a few places belonging to the Nayaks
of Madurai, Gingee and Tanjore. As Thiruchirapalli lay on the high road to
the south the strategic and military importance of its rock-fort as a means
of defence was quickly realised by Cokkanatha, who transferred the capital
back to Thiruchirapalli in 1665. In effecting the transfer he seems to have
displayed too much and undeserved enthusiasm. According to the evidence of
the Jesuit fathers he dismantled portions of the magnificent palace, which
Tirumala Nayak had recently erected for himself in Thiruchirapalli.55 (Ibid.,
pp.278-79)
A resume of the above events was given just to show that neither
these events not their social and economic consequences can even vaguely be
interred from either the fairly numerous inscriptions of Cokkanatha in the
Srirangam temple or the account of the Koil-Olugu bearing on his building and
patronising activities. It has to be assumed that these belong to the earlier
part of his reign from Thiruchirapalli i.e., A.D.1665-1675, in other words
before the loss of Tanjore to the Mahrattas. This is confirmed by the
chronology of Cokkanatha’s inscriptions in the Srirangam temple. The latter
as well as the account in the Olugu certainly counter the impression of
failure, darkness and misery created by a reading of the Jesuit letters of
the period.
It was seen above that Tirumala Nayak was a Vaisnava to begin with
but later (c.1640) renounced the acaryaship of Pranadartihara Vaduladesikar
or Annangar of Srirangam for his refusal to welcome Tatacarya of
Kanchipuram and became a Saiva. From his seat in Madurai he began to
patronise in a significant manner its Saiva temples. Cokkanatha too, as
indicated by his name was a Saiva to begin with. His conversion to Vaisnavism
came about, according to the Olugu in the following manner. Obviously
encouraged by royal patronage an Advaittin called Vajrangi was preaching
Saivism in Srirangam. The Stalattar of the temple invited Srinivasa Desikar
to controvert his preachings. With Muttu Alakadri, Acyutappa, Krisnappa
and Vallappa, the four brothers of Cokkanatha as mediators, a debate
lasting 44 days took place between Srinivasadesikar and Vajrangi in the
garden of Paksiraja, opposite to the Garuda shrine in the Srirangam
temple.67 (Alagiri Nayaka, the foster brother of Cokkanatha, and Muttu
Alakadri, his young brother, as known to the Jesuit letters. The Olugu,
here, mentions three others besides Alakadri.) With their Saivite learning
the mediators tried to favour the Advaitin but failed in their attempt. On
inquiries they came to know that the ancestors of Srinivasa Desikar were
the spiritual preceptors of their they renounced Saivism and sought spiritual
guidance at the feet of the Vaisnava Acarya, who was no other than, the
grandson of Annangar, descended from the line of Mudaliandan.68 (K.O.,
p.188) Sometime later Cokkanatha Nayak too sought spiritual guidance at
the feet of the Vaisnava Acarya. We have seen above that an inscription
refers to Muttu Alakadri as a sisya of Acarya Vadhulai Cudamai, i.e., the
gem 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 the
Annan Tirumaligai Olugu)
death of Muttu Virappa III. This record confirms the date given in the
Maduraittalavaralaru. It mentions a certain Virapratapa Viradeva Maharaya
ruling at Ghanagiri (Penukonda) as sovereign Ghangiri had long ago ceased to
be the capital of the Rayas. Later records too dated in A.D.1706, etc.,
particularly of Vijayaranga Cokkanatha (A.D.1706-1732), mention a certain
suzerain, a Raya ruling from Ghanagiri. This is a good example of historical
anachronism. The scribe appears to have blindly copied the invocatory
portions of former inscriptions. See IA XLVI-1917, p.239, note 96) These
rights 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 to
participate in religious disputations with the Saivas. Ranga Krisna Mutta
Virappa is said to have given to Kumara Venkata Varadacaryar a tirtadi
danadharma sasanam, a deed regulating in what order and by whom tirtam
etc. were to be received. Two inscriptions speak of the gifts of his wife to
the temple. Muddammgaru, the queen of Sriranga Krisna Mudduvirappa
Nayaka, according to these inscriptions, made a gift of a gold kirita to God
Sriranganatha in the year Prabhava (1688) and in the next year, Vibhava
(1689), she made a gift of two villages, Isanaikura and Nanakura, to
Srinivasayya, evidently Srinivasa Desikar, for maintaining a Ramanujakutam
and for worship and Sahasranamarcana of the god.80 (3 and 4 of 1936-37;
pt.II, para 66)
When Muttu Virappa III died his son Vijayaranga Cokkanatha was a
child. Hence upto 1706 his mother, Mangammal, acted as regent. During this
period all the southern powers except Gingee, under Rajaram, the second
son of Sivaji, submitted to the Mughal imperial authority at Delhi. Following
the example of the majority Mangammal paid tribute to Zulfikar Khan, the
general of Aurangzeb (1693) and maintained peace in the kingdom. The Tamil
and Telugu chronicles of Madurai and the Carnatic are full of accounts of her
generosity. She was an arch-benefactress. She gave gifts without distinction
of caste or community. A copper plate inscription of 1701 states that she
made a gift of some villages near Thiruchirapalli to a Muslim darga belonging
to Baba Natta. She spent much money in laying out roads and erecting
catrams throughout her kingdom. Two inscriptions in the Srirangam temple
mention her as ruler. One dated 1696 states that Samavedi Ramaiyangar
alias Sriranga Kalyana Ramanuja Ramaipangar, the nephew of Periya Kalyana
Ramanujasvamin, succeeded the latter in the supervision of the affairs of
the Dasavatara temple in Srirangam.81 (100 of 1936-37) The other dated
1697 records the conferment of the title Jiyar of Tirumangai Alvar Sannidhi
1697 records the conferment of the title Jiyar of Tirumangai Alvar Sannidhi
One more instance of the struggle for power among the stalattar of
the temple is provided by the Olugu, which says that after S.1642
(A.D.1720) Vedavyasa Bhattar Raghunathcaryar collected together a large
number of people on the pretence of a religious gathering and “defied royal
authority by plundering the shops and closing the gates of the sample”. The
object evidently was to discredit Kumara Srinivasa Desikar, who was basking
in the limelight of royal favour. After a siege of two months one Irulappa
Nayak captured him and took him to the king. Vijayaranga ordered the
rebels 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 of
Puddukottah, where he remained a prisoner, for twelve years.88 (KO.,
pp.194-195)
NEXT PAGE
Chapter 10
The Koil-Olugu says that during his three year’s rule Canda Saheb
tried to attack Srirangam in the year Raktaksi and pressed the stalattar of
the temple to pay tribute and that Parasara Bhattar, Vaduladesikar,
Uttamanambi and others joined together and paid to Canda Saheb one lakh
of rupees. Thus the temple was saved. This amount, it is said, was raised
with the help of some jewels of the temple and by levying taxes like kani
vari, 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 to
1743, and adds that neither during the occupation of Canda Saheb nor during
the Mahratta occupation did the Perumal quit the Bhupalarayan, i.e., the
seat of the procession images; in other words there was no occasion for the
deity being removed from the temple for purposes of security.1 (KO.,
pp.195-96. The cyclic years mentioned viz., Plavanga for Canda Sahib’s
pp.195-96. The cyclic years mentioned viz., Plavanga for Canda Sahib’s
capture of Thiruchirapalli and Raktaksi for his attempt to sack the
Srirangam temple are wrong for they correspond to 1729 and 1745
respectively) The Uttamanambi-vamsaprabhavam says that Korappatti
Murari Rao (Murari Rao Ghorpade) granted 57 villages as jagir to the
Srirangam temple, 14 to the Jambukesvaram temple and 9 to the temple of
Tayumanaswami on the rock of Thiruchirapalli, and that he appointed
Srirangacarya Uttamanambi as jagirdar of these 80 villages.2 (No.88 in the
Vamsaprabhavam) This was no fresh gift and was obviously in partial
confirmation of Cokkanatha Nayak’s grant.
The death of Asaf Jah in 1748 and the release of Canda Sahed from
the prison of the Mahrattas the same year led to succession disputes both
the Haiderabad and Arcot. As is well known to students of Indian History
Canda Saheb formed an alliance with Muzaffar Jang, a grandson of Asaf Jah
and a claimant to the throne of Haiderabad, the Dupleix, the French
governor of Pondicherry. After making preparations he advanced against
Anwaruddin. On 23 July 1749 the combined forces of the allies defeated
and killed Nawab Anwaruddin in the battle of Ambur. Muzaffar Jang easily
occupied Arcot but the fortress of Thiruchirapalli could not be captured as it
was stoutly defended by Muhammad Ali, the son of Anwaruddin. Mohammad
Ali 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 after
some hesitation.
Canda Saheb was now free to settle issues with Muhammad Ali, who
had shut himself up in the fort of Thiruchirapalli and taken every precaution
to withstand a prolonged siege. With a sizable army, he left Arcot, subdued
all Jagirdars who still owed allegiance to Muhammad Ali and finally laid siege
to the impregnable rock fort of Thiruchirapalli. Muhammad Ali sent urgent
appeals for help to the English at Madras and Cuddalore and in February and
April 1751 contingents of European and Indian troops under captions Dalton
and Gingen and Liue tenant Clive took the field against the forces of Canda
Saheb and his French allies operating outside Tiruccirappali. They were
joined by the troops despatched by Muhammad Ali. Canda Saheb now led his
forces against these, but suffered a reverse at Vridhacalam. At
Valikandapurm, however, he won a victory. Here the infantry and cavalry of
Muhammad Ali took such a fright of Canda Saheb’s army that they struck a
precipitate retreat, which did not stop despite the efforts of the English
generals till they reached the walls of the Thiruchirapalli fort. The English
generals rallied together a part of the fleeing army and camped at Uttatur,
about 25 miles north of Thiruchirapalli. Before Canda Saheb reached the
same place, however, the generals, fearing that their enemy might try to
intercept the road between their camp and Thiruchirapalli, preferred to
retreat and quietly decamped from Uttatur. After a continuous march of 18
hours they reached Biksandarkoil on the northern bank of the Coleroon. Here
it was first proposed to make a stand, but later orders were issued to the
whole army to cross over the Coleroon to the island of Srirangam, with the
view that the seven walled shrine at Srirangam offered better means of
security than Biksandarkoil. The English troops and those of the Nawab
entered the Srirangam temple and were admitted by the priests with great
reluctance into the three outer enclosures, which provided more room than
was required, and with earnest solicitations imploring them not to carry the
stain of their pollution nearer the sanctum. Here they had no fear of their
communication with Thiruchirapalli being cut because the enemy if he made
any 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, ere
long, decided to quit Srirangam and take shelter behind the walls of
Thiruchirapalli justifying themselves at the same time by a suspicion that the
outer wall of the temple was in a state of dilapidation and by the though
that the extent of the shrine was too big to be defended.
Canda Saheb now concentrated all his attention on the blockade, and
supplies to the beleaguered garrison became difficult. At the suggestion of
Muhammad Ali and with the approval of the English governor, Saunders, Clive
effected the celebrated diversion to Arcot (August 1751).5 (Tuzaki
Wulajahi by Burhan Ibn Hassan, translated and edited by Muhammad Hussain
Nainar, (University of Madras 1946), Vol.II, pp.87-90) His capture of
Arcot, however, did not materially affect the siege of Thiruchirapalli. The
French mounted two 18 pounders on a rock, which came to be known as the
French rock, about a mile south-east of Thiruchirapalli and also erected a
battery of two guns on the island of Srirangam. The guns on the French rock
and in Srirangam were too distant to make any impression on the defences of
the rock-fort, and they were utilised mainly to cut off communications with
the fort from the south and the north.
Muhammad Ali was growing desperate with his revenues and supplies
running short. While his English ally and protector within the fort, Captain
Gingen, was prone to rest content with the policy of preserving his men
hoping that the enemy would soon fatigue his troops and exhaust his
ammunition. Taking the initiative for a second time he appealed to the king
of Mysore (Cikka Krisnaraja 1734-66) for help. The effect which this
appeal had clearly shows that the affairs of Thiruchirapalli were being
carefully watched by the neighbouring powers. A contingent of the Mysore
army under the command of Nandi Raja (Nanjaraja) immediately marched to
the relief of Thiruchirapalli. On the way it was joined by the Mahrattas
under Murari Rao, who had been waiting for a vourable opportunity to
recover Thiruchirapalli, after he had surrendered it to Asaf Jah in 1743.
The English were now prepared to send reinforcements and help Muhammad
Ali more effectively. Under cover of a continuous fire maintained by Captains
Cope and Dalton the Mysore army and the Mahrattas numbering 12,000
horse and 8,000 foot reached the fort on 6 February 1752. This junction
induced the Raja of Tanjore to contribute 3,000 horse and 2,000 foot
towards the relief of Thiruchirapalli. This force was commanded by Manaji.
Some of the polegars also sent reinforcements. Thus the army of Muhammad
Ali suddenly swelled to 20,000 cavalry and an equal number of foot-soldeirs
while 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 Caption
Clive, consisting of 400 European troops and 1,100 Indian sepoys, with eight
field pieces, left Fort St.David for Thiruchirapalli. A French contingent
under Jacques Law proceeded, under the command of Dupleix, to intercept
the English force and a hotly contested battle was fought near the Golden
Rock, three miles south of Thiruchirapalli, in which both parties made full
use of their cannon. The French were defeated and the contingent sent by
Canda Saheb routed. Jacques Law was so much alarmed by this defeat that
he immediately decided to withdraw the entire force from Thiruchirapalli and
take refuge in the temples in the island of Srirangam. Canda Saheb
protested against his move but had to agree. Law quartered his troops in
the Jambukesvaram temple while those of Canda Saheb found shelter inside
the walls of the Srirangam temple.
Realising that Canda Saheb and the French were effectively blockaded
in the island of Srirangam Manaji, the Tanjore general, made bold to cross
the 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, to
desert their master. 2,000 of his best horses and 1,500 sepoys left
Srirangam and joined Clive at Samayapuram; some joined the Mysore army in
Thiruchirapalli 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 zealously
defended the inner shrines of the Srirangam temple against all intruders.
This helped the pujas and festive rituals to be performed as usual.
The Occupation of the Srirangam temple by the Mysoreans and the French:
July, 1752-May 1758
Nandiraja now detached one half of his army and sent them across the
river to Thiruchirapalli with express instructions to intercept all convoys of
provisions proceeding to the fortress-town. The Mysoreans cut off the noses
of the pedlars and other merchants who attempted to bring provisions into
the city. This was done so effectively that in a short time all the grain
shops in Thiruchirapalli were closed down and the granaries in the fort
became empty. On the receipt of an express message from Dalton Major
Lawrence arrived in Thiruchirapalli from Fort St.David on 6 May 1753 with a
large convoy of provisions. A single sally of Major Lawrence into Srirangam on
10 May convinced him that the enemy was strong. He quietly retreated to
the fort and began to concert measures to stock grains but his attempt
were far from successful.
Finally Nadiraja and the French numbering in all 450 Europeans, 1,500
sepoys and 8,000 Mysore and Mahratta horse decided to quit Srirangam and
cross over to Thiruchirapalli. Their policy was a block all transport of
provisions so effectively as to force and defenders of the fort to come out
and fight or surrender. With this view they occupied and garrisoned the
Golden Rock and the Sugar Loaf Rock, south of the Thiruchirapalli fort, and
began to harass the normal supply routes to effectively that Major
Lawrence, who knew that there was no time for deliberation, marched out
with 500 Europeans, 2,000 sepoys, and only a hundred of the Nawab’s
horse, who agreed to accompany him and in a pitched battle fought beneath
these rocks defeated the enemy and put them to rout. This victory gave the
much needed respite to the besieged city and a considerable amount of food
grains was brought into the fortress. This, however, did not solve the
problem as the blockade was taken up again with vigour and the civilian
inhabitants of the city, unable to get food and other provisions, began to
desert it in batches to live in other places.
The Nawab and Lawrence now turned their efforts to drive the enemy
from the neighbourhood of Thiruchirapalli back to Srirangam and for this
purpose obtained reinforcements from Fort St.David and Tanjore, whose king
was prepared to back the cause of Muhammad Ali. As Major Lawrence
advanced towards Thiruchirapalli with 170 Europeans and 300 sepoys from
St.David and 3,000 horse and 2,000 match-locks from Tanjore under the
command of Manaji. Nadiraja tried to intercept him, but was defeated again
at the Golden Rock (7 August 1753). The reinforcements entered the fort
with a convoy of provisions; In September was fought the decisive battle.
Major Lawrence led out his troops and attacked the enemy camp extending
from the Golden Rock to the Sugar Loaf Rock. The enemy suffered a total
defeat and retreated in great hurry to the island of Srirangam abandoning
much baggage and ammunition.
The plan of starving the fort into surrender by cutting off food
supplies had thus proved ineffective. On the night of 27 November about
600 Frenchmen crossed the river and made a daring attempt to take the
fort by escalade. Placing the scaling ladders against the walls of the western
gate, known as Dalton’s battery, they climbed up the battery without making
alarm and bayonetted the sleeping guards, but some of them inadvertently
fell into a deep pit left in the structures and their screams roused the
nearest defenders. The ladders were pushed down; the French who were
firing confusedly in the darkness were imprisoned. About a 100, who tried
the experiment of leaping down 18 feet, suffered terribly and some lost
their lives.
Hostilities between the English and the French broke out in Europe in
1756 with the outbreak of the Seven Year’s war. Count de Lally, the French
plenipotentiary, who reached India in 1758, made Madras and Fort St.David
his objectives and did not pay any attention to Thiruchirapalli. That this fort
was 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 his
campaigns he summoned the entire garrison of Srirangam to quit the temple
and join him at Cuddalore. The French accordingly quitted the temple on 17
May 1758.
After the withdrawal of Nandiraja, i.e., when the French were in sole
occupation of Srirangam, they appear to have harassed the citizens again
and indulged in gross misconduct. Under date 9 December 1755 Ananda
Ranga Pillai notes in his Diary. “The Srirangam Brahmanas report that they
have received letters saying that (the commandant) M.Flacourt sent 50
sepoys to the house of Achariar (whose name I do not know), and that these
men seized and beat him, stole some money and ravished the women, so that
all classes of Brahmanas and others - 10,000 persons in all - assembled
together, closed the temples of Srirangam and Jambukesvaram and mounted
on the gopurams whereon M.Flacourt fled.” 13 (Ibid., p.404) Again under
date 14 December he writes, “the Srirangam Brahmanas presented a
petition (to the governor M.Leyrit) that M.Flacourt at Srirangam had sent
guards to carry off women from Nadamuni Achariyar’s house. The governor
read this and gave it to M.Barthelemy, who also read it. I think they have
resolved to recall him.”14 (Ibid., pp.406-7)
When the French evacuated the Srirangam temple in May 1758 it was
occupied by a contingent of the Mysore army under the brother of Haidar
Ali advancing from Dindigul. The occupation of the Mysoreans was short lived
for no sooner the French left Srirangam than the English at Thiruchirapalli
made the first serious attempt to occupy it. Captain Gaillaud appointed
Joseph Smith to repulse the Mysoreans from Srirangam. Smith took his
post in the Jambukesvaram temple and opened a bombardment upon
Srirangam from two martars. The challenge was not taken and the same
night the Mysoreans decamped leaving considerable military stores and
artillery and went back to Dindigul. The temple was occupied by the English
and garrisoned with 500 sepoys.
The Koil Olugu gives the correct date for Haider’s invasion. It says
that in S.1703 (A.D.1781), in Ani of Plavanga, (a mistake for Plava) Haider
marched with a lakh of soldiers, occupied Tondaimandalam and Colamandalam,
destroying the countryside, and surrounded Srirangam. An idea of the terror
struck by his approach is provided by the chronicle which says, “A crore of
inhabitants could nor contain themselves in the temple”. Haider is said to
have quartered his troops in the temple for six days at the end of which he
quitted it. A destruction of the temple was averted, it is said, through the
interventions of his Brahmana officers. Says the Olugu, “Alagiyamanavala
Perumal again intervened and acting as Samayyan, the letter bearer of
Haider, obtained a kavul or lease-deed from the latter, making over
Srirangam to himself, through the chief accountant of Haider, who was a
Srivaisnava, and thus saved the temple.”17 (KO., p.198)
After the death of Haider in 1782 Tippu, his son, assumed the
supreme command of the Mysore army. Having learnt a bitter lesson from
their 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 to
forestall his operations in the Carnatic. Towards the end of 1790 Tippu, by
means of his dexterous and secret marches, by-passed General Meadows,
who had been commissioned to keep the Sultan within the borders of the
Mysore country, and descended into the Carnatic with a view to carry the
war to the heart of the English dominions. By rapid marches he came to
Thiruchirapalli, threatened to storm the fort several times, but actually did
not lay siege to it. He crossed over to Srirangam and put the countryside to
fire and sword. When Meadows learnt of Tippu’s descent into the Carnatic
through the Toppur pass he quickly turned towards the east and on his
approach Tippu decamped from Srirangam on 8 December 1790 and
retreated 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 year
Sadarana, Tippu Saheb, of the most cruel temperament, invaded the
Carnatic with a huge army and spread desolation alround. He stationed
himself and his army in the temple for six days at the end of which he
abandoned it. He is also said to have demanded a lakh of gold pieces from
the Stalattar, viz., Srirangaraja Vaduladesikar, Rangacaryar and Bhattar
for the expenses of his army. This amount, we are told, was refused and
before Tippu could wreak his vengeance upon the temple, he had to flee it
for 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 of
them. Again Alagiyamanavalan interfered and, as a result, Tippu was pacified
through 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 for
palace use. This obviously means for the use of Muhammad Ali’s household.
Srirangaraja Vaduladesikar and others, we are told, made huge protests at
the gateway of the storehouse and declared that they would sacrifice their
lives, at which the paddy was not taken, The Olugu adds that the Mudali did
many repairs to the walls and conducted an abhisheka for the god.20 (Ibid.)
Dispute over tirta honours: The Nawab’s Decision in the case of Annangar
vs.Rangacari, 1796
The copy of the Nawab’s decision is interesting and throws light on the
insistence on hereditary rights of precedence in receiving the holy tirtam in
the divine presence (tirta maryada) on the part of the Stalattar and the
Vaisnava Acaryas associated with the Srirangam temple. The question, in
other words, was sought to be decided on the basis of the duration of the
enjoyment of the right by the respective disputants. The witnesses deposed
that Rangacaryar enjoyed no tirta honours before the time of Vijayaranga
Cokkanatha Nayak, when tirtam was received in the order of Bhattar.
Jiyar, Perianambi and Annangar. The Nayak gave to Rangacaryar the right
to receive tirtam first along with Bhattar. This offended Annangar, who
resented his having to receive tirtam after the “new comer” (Rangacaryar).
It was stated that Rangacaryar enjoyed his rights only from the days of
the Nayak while Annangar had his tirta honours from the days of
Mudaliyandan. The Nawab declared that Rangacaryar’s contention was wrong,
but as he was receiving the maryada from the days of the Nayak he
decreed that the parties would receive tirta maryadas twice in a month
alternately. The order stated that they would enjoy rusumu (fees) and
mirasu (rights) equally, half in half. Without any quarrel they will enjoy their
shares in tirtam for ever and look after their own business.” If any one
acted 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 with
the help of Arunachalam Pillai into the affairs of the shrine and found out
that Annangar had stolen 40 seers of gold and pealed the gold plates off
the tolukkiniyan, tiruvasi (parts of the divine vehicles) the bathing seat, etc.
Araikktalai Singam Pillaiyappan, Bhandari Rangappan and Sattada Arangan
gave out that they had themselves given him those articles. In the presence
of the Nawab Annangar confused the crime, on which he was fined 1,200
gold pagodas and exiled.”23 (KO., p.202) In Adi, i.e., the next month, the
English assumed the control of the temple and John Wallace, the Collector,
quashed the Nawab’s judgement of 1796 and gave to Vaduladesikar
Srirangacaryar the mamul i.e., the customary right, that was in vogue five
years earlier.24 (145 of 1938-39; pt.II, para 74)
The best known composer of devotional songs in South India, who lived
in recent times, was Thyagaraja (1767-1847). In the later part of his life
he 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 day
of the horse-vehicle in a certain brahmotsava. He was elbowed out on
account of the great crowd of people. Further he was not a Vaisnava and
hence could not command any influence even though he was already well known
as a great musical composer. Suddenly the procession stopped as the
bearers of the divine image could not move forward. People knew that this
was due to the wrath of the god. Special pujas were performed and lamps
were waved on the spot; raja dasis and Visnu dasis came and danced, all to
no purpose. The visit of the saint Thyagaraja and his fruitless attempts to
come near the images were soon known to all. The priests rushed to him and
implored him to come near and pray to the god to resume the procession. On
his appeal the bearers, it is said, were able to move forward. This incident
is echoed in his song commencing with the words Vinarada na manavi (won’t
you hear my appeal?). After this the Stalattar of the temple did him the
unique honour of having darsan of the god in the sanctum alone, when he is
said to have sung the piece O Rangasayi.
NEXT
PAGE
Chapter 11
ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION
M
A In the history of the Srirangam temple as in the case of
I most other temples three powers enjoyed, more or less in succession,
N
supreme authority, viz., the priests in charge of the pujas and festivals,
M the religious authority, i.e., the saints or acaryas who presided over the
E
N mutts, and the secular authority or the king and his officers. In other
U words the secular authority ultimately triumphed. The priests were
hereditary servants of the temple, who originally received their lands and
assignments from a king or chieftain, including the right of transfer, on a
permanent basis. They were not responsible to any officer of state. Their
duties were defined, regulated and supervised by the chief administrative
officer of the temple who, in Srirangam was called the Senapati-durantara,
himself an acarya or kovanavar. He exercised control not only over the
priests who performed pujas in the main and other shrines but the other
servants who had miscellaneous functions.
Section I
The Koil Olugu describes at length the duties of each of the ten
groups of temple servants, supposed to have been fixed by Udayavar, well
known as the tittam or arrangement (of Udayavar), and also refers to the
changes to which they were subjected in due course. It is said that from
the days of Tirumangai Alvar the temple servants were divided into five
groups, viz., Kovanavar, Kodavar, Koduvaleduppar, Paduvar and Talaiyiduvar
and that these were expanded into ten groups.1 (KO., pp.46-48. In the
Arulappadu 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, who
from the days of Nathamuni had associated themselves, with the temple.
Kovanavar, as forming one distinct group, is not mentioned under the scheme
of Udayavar. Instead the word is used to refer to the family of
Mudaliyandan, the Kandadais, who had a hereditary claim to the office of
the Senapati durantara, from the days of Udayavar. Kodavar seems to be a
corruption of kudavar or pot-bearers.1a (Ibid., pp.56-57) Koduvaleduppar
means sword-bearers, Paduvar singers and Talaiyiduvar providers of leaves.
The Olugu does not describe this fivefold classification but merely mentions it
as a thing of the past. The functions of the ten groups or pattukkottu, as
fixed by Udayavar, are described below.
The first holder of the office of the administrative chief under the
Udayavar tittam was Mudaliyandan. For nearly two centuries the office was
exercised by the members of his family. After the Muslim invasions of 1311
and 1323 this family lost its control over the office as they seem to have
left Srirangam and did not return in time to claim the office when things
became normal. The Koil Olugu says, “Since the Muhammadan occupation the
office of the administrative chief is being exercised by diverse persons
known as Sriranga Narayana Jiyar, Bhattar, Uttamanambi, Cakrarayar,
Kandadai Ramanuja Aiyangar, Korattu Maniyam (Superintendent with his
station on the verandah), Elam Kelvi (Assistant Superintendent), etc.”2
(KO., p.65) Of these the first was an ascetic, who rose to importance in
the thirteenth century, founded a mutt and ultimately gained control over
some 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 of
the darsana or philosophy and had nothing to do with management. But his
successors enjoyed for brief periods, during the rule of the Rayas of
Vijayanagar, some honours due to the administrative chief. Thus the powers
and privileges of the office Senapatidurantara came to be divided between
Andan (of the family of Mudaliyandan), Bhattar (of the family of Parasara
Bhattar) and the Jiyar (of the matha of Sriranga Narayana Jiyar).
Uttamanambi and his brother Cakraraya rose to prominence during the
Vijayanagar period and were patronised by the Rayas, who looked upon them
as the representatives and wardens of the Srirangam temple and handed
over their gifts to them for administration. They enjoyed all secular
authority 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 assumed
the dasyanama of Kandadai Ramanujadasa. He came to Srirangam in 1489
and was proatnised by the Raya of Vijayanagar. From inscriptions it does not
appear that he enjoyed any administrative authority over the temple. He
made a few gifts and provided for a Ramanuja kutam or choutry.4 (Ibid.,
pp.117-171) Korattu Maniyam and Elam Kelvi were perhaps officers dealing
with accounts.
These were outsiders, i.e.; those not belonging to Srirangam but who
became the disciples of Udayavar and settled down there and were assigned
duties in the temple by the acarya. These were assistants to the arcakas
or priests and their main function was the lighting and maintenance of lamps
in the main and subsidiary shrines in the first three enclosures. They
brought flour and ghee from the storehouse, made suitable wick holders out
of the dough, placed the wicks in them and handed them over to the arcakas
during worship. Similarly they prepared other kinds of lamps like kumbalatti
or pot lamp and gave them to the arcakas. For the Tirukkartikai festival
they prepared thousand large wicks and brought lighted lamps from the
kitchen for worship. Besides attending to the lamps they had a few other
duties like announcing the arrival of the taligai or cooked rice offering,
screening the sanctum, heaping the rice over the cloth called pavadai and
holding torches during the divine meal. After the reconstruction of the
Dhanvantri shrine, referred to by inscriptions and the Olugu as the
Arogyasala in 1493 they took in procession every night milk and medicinal
decoction (kasaya) from the shrine to Garudavahana Pandita for being
offered to the Perumal.
The duties of the temple servants passed on from father to son and
were looked upon, in course of time, as rights and privileges. Some of these
were parted under various circumstances, e.g., “of the seven lamps which
they (the Tiruppatiyar) used to bring from the kitchen one was given to
Uttamanambi as gift and the rest was disposed off independently.”5 (Ibid.,
p.68) Often they were sold away.
The main function of this group of servants was the inspection of the
streets through which the deity was taken in procession during festivals.
They accompanied the row of Srivaisnava hymnists, (tiruvolakkam) during
such processions and on their behalf received the offerings made by the
devotees, viz., coins, fruits, etc. They also offered the hymnists tirtam and
prasadam. At the close of each festival they recited the Tiruppani-malai or
Padippu. For this reason, says the Koil Olugu they were called Tiruppani-
saivar.6 (Ibid., p.72) In the Vijayanagar period they parted with their
rights connected with the inspection of the streets. They were done the
honour of elephant ride as one of them had martyred himself in the boundary
dispute with the Saivas of Jambukesvaram.7 (Ibid., pp.139-140)
The first name means the pure (brahmins) wearing washed clothes and
learned in the vedas. The second means natives of the town. These were the
original Srivaisnava inhabitants of Srirangam with their duties mainly in the
sanctum 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, offered
the amudu or the divine food (consisting of rice, etc.) mirror, jewels and
ornaments, kasturi and tiruman whenever they were required, restoring the
jewels carefully to the Sribhandara or treasury after use, honoured the
Srikaryam with parivattam, sandal paste and prasadam during festivals,
added scent to the water for abhisekam held during festivals, added scent
to the water for abhisekam held chaures and pearl-umbrellas when the
utsava heras were bathed, carried the Satakopan behind processions keeping
it on their chests and offering it to those who deserved it, performed some
duties when the deity was worshipped in mantapas outside the main shrine
during 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 away
to the Bhagavata Nambis their duties of bearing the Satakopan behind
processions and attending to the pujas in the mantapas outside during
festivals.
The word means ‘holy water pot carriers’. It was their duty to fetch
water from the Kaveri in silver pots or kudams placed on the back of an
elephant, make a store of them and fill up the pancapatras and other
vessels in the sanctum with the sacred water for all pujas beginning with
that at dawn. They offered during the ceremony of washing the teeth of
the utsavabera at dawn and for washing its mouth whenever panakam and
betel were offered. They had a few duties connected with the supply of
garlands called the vellai and the vagaccal. They made a chain of tulasi
beads and offered it to the deity to be worn during the holy bath or
tirumanjanam. They also supplied the Andal or pins and Arulmari or knives
used in the decoration of the procession images and seating them on their
vehicles. According to the Olugu the duties connected with the tulasi beads
and the garlands were parted in favour of the Dasanambis and a few sudra
servants for monetary considerations after the Muslim invasions.
(vii) The Stanattar or Talaiyiduvar:10 (Talaiyiduvar means providers of
leaves. Its significance is not clear. This group is also called Stanattar and
seems to have enjoyed a high status)
While the Arayar or the Vinnappam saivar recited the Tamil verses of
the Nalayirapprabandam, the Bhattal recited mainly the Sanskrit pieces,
selections, according to the Olugu, from “the itihasas, the Sriranga
Mahatmyam the Asvalayana sutra, the Bodhayana sutra the Mimamsa sutra,
the vyakarana, the Nalayira Prabandam, the Alavandar stotram, the
Sribhasyam, the Gitabhasyam, the Gadyatrayam, and the paneangam”.
These recitations were done by Periakoil Nambi before the coming of
Udayavar. After the latter assumed control of the temple the former gave
away his right of reading the puranas etc., as a gift to kurattalvan, a
disciple of Udayavar, who distributed the right among his disciples. The
vedas etc., were also included in the recitations besides the puranas.
“Subsequent to the puja and the recitation of a verse from the Muvayiram
by the Arayar and when arulappadu had been announced by the Ullurar, they
(the Bhattar)”, says the Olugu, “would wash their hands with the pure water
brought by the Tirukkaragakkaiyar in a huge cup. Then they would respect
fully receive the prasadam from their hands and then recite the following
one by one. Garudavahana Pandita would lead with the Rigveda, Periya Nambi
would recite the yajur and the sama vedas, the Tiruppani-saivar the
Atharvanaveda, the Bhagavata Nambis and Kurattalvan the Puranas,
Tiruvarangattamudanar, Govinda Perumal, Accan, Pillan, Ciriyalvan, Nadadur
Ammal and others from various sacred shrines along with their co-preceptors
would one by one recite the itihasas”, etc.12 (Ibid., pp.84-85) They recited
the purusa suktam during the tirumanjanam. On the Kaisika Dvadasi day they
read the Kaisikapurana. The vedas, etc., were, obviously, recited during the
Adyayanotsava 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 plank
tied to poles and carried by bearers) accompanied by all the temple
servants. As the temple became pronouncedly Tenkalai in spirit the Sanskrit
recitations were discontinued gradually.
These were the watchmen and guards of the temple. As their name
indicates they seem to have come from North India. The Koil Olugu says
that a certain chieftain of Gaudadesa (Bengal) came to Srirangam and
offered a huge treasure to the god, who was not pleased to accept it. The
chieftain is said to have appointed some brahmanas from the north to guard
the treasure and returned. Since these brahmanas pleased the god by their
single minded devotion and service, the latter not only accepted the treasure
but also honoured them with the service of the temple watch. The Olugu
gives the date Kali 3260 (A.D.159) for this incident, but almost all the Kali
dates given by the Olugu are fanciful and unreliable. Hence it is not possible
to say who this chieftain of Gaudadesa was. From inscriptions it is known
that pilgrims from the north used to visit south Indian temples in the
medieval period and make gifts.14 (ARE.1928-29, pt.II, para 36) The
earliest mention of Aryabhattal occurs in an epigraph of Srirangam dated in
39th year of Kulottunga I (1109). It registers sale of land by the temple
authorities to a certain Ariyan Vasudevan Bhattan alias Rajaraja
Brahmarayan of Anisthanam in Kasmira desam.14a (14 of 1936-37) This
refers to the visit to the temple of a Kasmir brahman and his receipt of
land, which indicates that he had settled in Srirangam and taken up some
service in the temple. Visits by North Indians to the temple might have
occurred even much earlier because, as testified to by Tirumangai Alvar, it
had become in his days, i.e., the 8th century, famous both in the north and
the south and attracted devotees from all sides. One such affluent pilgrim
might have been the chieftain of Gaudadesa, mentioned by the Olugu who
probably came not merely with treasure but with a set of brahmana servants
with the avowed intention of dedicating them to the temple. These were
accepted only after some hesitation. An inscription of Maravarman Sundara
Pandya I, dated 1225 in Srirangam, specifically mentions the Ariyar among
the various servants of the temple.14b (53 of 1892; SII IV.500) An
inscription 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 nights
between this pair of gateways and the next inner pair, opened these
gateways at dawn when the Tirukkarasakkaiyar came to take the water
pots, and kept watch carefully with torches in their hands” over “the
incoming and outgoing of articles throughout the day and night in the first
two enclosures and outside the gateway of the sanctum, with the store
house excepted”. According to the Olugu they were honoured with arulappadu
when the god, taken in procession, reached the third gateway. The divine
commandment referred to both the Aryabhattal and the lord of
Gaudadesa.15 (KO., pp.7, 86)
These were the providers of flowers and flower garlands. They laid
out flower-gardens, made varieties of flower garlands and bunches called
vagaccal, killimalai, kiliccendu, tandaimalai, kottumalai, kudamalai, etc.,
decorated the palanquins with the flowers for processions, held the torches
in the divine presence near the doorway of the sanctum, and bore the
Sanaimudaliar and the Dasamurtis in procession during festivals. For these
services they were honoured with tirtam, prasadam, parivattam and a single
garland.
The Vettirapanis:
The Ekangis
The Koil Olugu refers to the Kalalappan and says that his duty was to
measure the grain in the granary with the marakkal and supply the required
quantity for daily use in the temple. Another Vellala by name Koil-katta
Perumal guarded the gateway of the Rajamahendran enclosure. The temple
accountant was also a Vellala and was called Vilupparaiyan. The term Vellala
commonly refers to cultivators and the Olugu obviously has not included the
cultivators of the temple lands in the villages, far and near, among the
temple servants. According to this chronicle Udayavar wanted to entrust the
accounts to a Brahmana but was pursuaded by the local dignitaries to let the
Vellala remain. However he created another post called Stala-samprati and
appointed a vellala, Vansatakopadasan, to it. The two officials came to be
known as Pallavan Vilupparaiyan and Pandyan Vansatakopadasan
respectively.18 (Pallavan and Pandyan are said to be names given by the
respective kings to perpetuate their memory in the temple) “Of these the
duties of Pallavan Vilupparaiyan were writing epistles to the Alvar, writing
down documents of the Senapati and carving inscriptions on stone. The duties
of Vansatakopadasan were writing the lease deeds and mortgage deeds and
taking copies of the documents of the Senapati and the stone inscriptions.
Both had equal jurisdictions with regard to the accounts of the store house
and the temple lands including the day-book.”19 (KO., p.91)
According to the chronicle the first office became extinct for want of
successor. The accountant appointed in his place was called
Sriranganarayanapiran. Both the offices carried a few honours and the Olugu
refers to quarrels over precedence.
The Koil Olugu next mentions the duties of the group of servants called
the Saluvar. They had miscellaneous functions like the ilanir kainkaryam or
offering the water of the tender cocoanuts to the god, setting up the
circular platform for the holy bath, adorning the horse vehicle of the god
during brahmotsavas and fanning the deity with camaras stationed on either
side of the vehicle, blowing the conch and the trumpets, offering clay for
sealing the locks of doorways, removing the used fuel from the kitchen and
bringing plantain leaves from the gardens. Later they acquired the function
of climbing up the Karttikai dipastambha and setting alight the dipa.
(iv) Tiruvelakkarar:
These were entrusted with the functions of watch and ward. They
guarded the store house, the room containing the canopies, drums and
umbrellas, the hall of the divine vehicles (vahanasala) etc., brought the
grains, jaggery, and other provisions from the adjoining villages and deposited
them in the granary or the store house and waited along with the parijanas
when the procession started.
The sculptors, masons and metal workers were grouped under the
artisan class called the Kammalas. The sculptor-mason called silpacari
attended to masonry repairs of the gopuras, decorated the kalasa on the
vimana, made images of stucco, carved out stone images and painted figures
on the walls of the mantapas etc. The goldsmith repaired the jewels and
ornaments of the deities, polished them frequently, made “the seven
ornaments appropriate to the seven days of the week,” attended to the
duties connected with the Jyestabhisekam and provided the divine vehicles
with a covering of gold plates. The copper smith and the bell-metal worker
made the plates and pots used in worship, cast lamp stands, bells and gongs
and provided artistically decorated coverings for steps, stairs and pedestals.
Casting of metal images was obviously an expert’s job and when a need arose
skilled professionals were employed for the purpose.
These washed and dried the divine garments, offered the cloth called
the tiruppavadai for spreading the taligai or rice offering to the god and,
whenever necessary, dyed the clothes used in the decoration of the ceilings
of the mantapas.
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 five
kinds of musical instruments”, and they played to the tune of the Arayar
during the ceremonies like the padiyerram and when dances were performed
by the temple dancers. On these occasions they also played individually the
five kinds of talam, “mattalam, suttalam, celli-mattalam, vagai and
avijam.”20 (Ibid., pp.99-100)
Section II
) While the Koil Olugu refers to the ten groups of temple servants it does
not speak of a managing committee of ten Kovanavar; instead it mentions the
Senapati-durantara, a Kovanavar, who was assisted by six superintendents.
From the inscription we come to know that about 1261 there was such a
committee, whose members belonged to one family and that the Pandya
diluted it with fresh elements, particularly his own officials. The introduction
of ex-officio members in the managing committee of the temple is a new
feature. This shows clearly that the faith which Udayavar placed in the
Senapti-durantara no longer obtained. This inscription is said to have been
engraved at the instance of Sriranganarayana Dasan, the manager of the
temple, and attested by Kannudaiyan Pallavan Vilupparaiyan, the temple
accountant.
In the Vijayanagar period the royal control became tighter but it was
exercised indirectly. The Rayas of Vijayanagar restored the temple from the
Muslims and made large endowments both in cash and landed property but did
not attempt to associate their officers directly with the temple
management; instead they encouraged local men like Uttamanambi to wield
power over the temple. This was so because they were respecters of Hindu
tradition and the autonomy of the Hindu temples and mathas, but in as much
as they superseded the old office-bearers, whether heriditary or elected,
with men of their choice, the autonomy was, in effect, nominal.
not only disinterestedly but would command respect from among the people.
In their appointment the representatives of the kings had a voice. These
were obviously not royal officials but their nominees.
The Koil Olugu laments the collapse of the Udayavar code and the rise
of new men, who were mere householders without any pretension to learning
or spiritual attainments like Uttamanambi and Cakraraya, in the place of the
office of the Senapatidurantara, a Kovanavar, descending hereditarily in the
family of Mudaliyandan. The offices multiplied. Interferences in the
administration of the temple continued under the Nayaks, while the Nawabs
of Arcot seem to have exercised a judicious non-interference as a result of
which the heriditary principle became re-established. The offices of
Udayavar with specified functions had disappeared for ever.
Oppression by governors:
Section III
The temple did not collect levies from the worshippers. There is no
evidence in the inscriptions or the in the Olugu to show that any fee was
collected from any worshipper for darsan or for the performance of any
seva or a special mode of worship. All its income was derived from free gifts
of land, gold, cash and various articles in kind made by individuals, high and
low. The grants themselves often clearly laid down how the land or money
was to be utilised. The land and money gifted were detailed and registered in
inscriptions on the walls and pillars of the temple. The accountant of the
temple recorded the same in the Olugu or the diary of the temple in the
presence of witnesses.
There does not seem to have been any machinery for the enforcement
of the grant in letter and spirit. Grants of gold or money were formally
handed over to the sabha of Tiruvarangam, which also undertook formally to
fulfill the conditions of the grant. It is not clear what exactly was the
relationship between the sabha and the temple. The sabha or the local
council, which was responsible for the local administration of the township,
obviously must have exercised some control over the temple, which after all
was the heart of the township. As the temple was a large landowner, there
is no doubt that it was represented in a big way in the sabha. The
inscriptions often conclude with a few imprecatory verses, which promise
great merit as well as rewards for those who implicitly carried out the
purposes of the donation and at the same time remind the sinners who
misused the grant of the dire consequences of their act. The grant is often
placed under the protection of the Srivanisnavas (Sri Vaisnava raksai).
Types of benefactions:
Here is given a peep into the variety of gifts known from inscriptions
excluding structures, i.e., shrines, walls, gopuras, etc., and images, both
stone and metal, for worship. Many inscriptions record gifts of money for
burning permanent lamps (nandavilakku) in the temple. Sometimes cows were
provided for the supply of ghee for burning lamps. Lands for rearing flower
gardens were often gifted to the temple. Gold coins kasu, gadyanas,
varahas, pons, etc.), were gifted for the institution of some sandi or service
i.e., worship along with offerings, on a particular day when the god was
taken in procession to a particular mantapa during a certain festival and so
on. The object of the gift was to commemmorate one self or his father or
son and in, one instance, his teacher.
It is a fact that neither the granaries nor the temple, treasury had
any guard for protecting the grain or valuables against an armed attack by
enemies. The Aryabhattal and other watchmen, etc., were intended more to
prevent theft and misappropriation by the temple servants than to defend
the temple in a crisis. Any such threat was not expected and hence no
security measures were taken. As a result the temple lost all its property in
the course of the Muslim invasions of the first quarter of the 14th century.
THE END