Vallala both operated from Kannanur and also kept it as his capital. As
it is near to Srirangam. Vallala besieged it and Mohammedans came for
compromise. However the negotiating Mohammedans brought an army
stealthily from Madurai and attacked Vallala and his army during the
night. Thus by treachery, they took Vallala to Madurai and killed him in
a cruel manner. They skinned him, flushed the flesh out, stuffed it
with hay and hanged the body in the midst of the streets of Madurai. The
date of his death is mentioned as anywhere between 1342 and 1348 CE.
His son Vallala IV (alias Hampeya Wodeyar or Virupaksha) reportedly
disappeared in 1346-47. Some opine after Vallala III, Vallala IV was
made his successor . . . the Hoysala Kingdom disappeared thereafter.
Thus, the people of South India suffered politically, socially and
economically during the period.
Early days of Deivasigamani Desikar:
Deivasigamani Desikar was born in 1291. He hailed from the “Adi-Saiva”
tradition and learned under Arulnandi Sivacharya, one of the four
Santhana-Kuravars. He had the blessings of Lord Siva at the early part
of life thus realising the wisdom. As per the directions of his Guru, he
went to Sri Kalahasti and brought a Divine Linga to Tiruvannamalai
whereupon it was consecrated and he started its worship. Both
Deivasigamani Desikar and Meikander were students of the same preceptor
i.e. Arulnandi Sivachari. Meikandar is also considered one of the
“Santhana Kuravar Nanku” i.e. Great Four Philosophers of the Tradition.
Saiva Siddhanta scholars consider that he flourished around 1240 CE.
After the invasion of Malikafur in 1311, Temples of South India suffered
huge damage and Saiva Mutts, Saivacharyas and devotees all suffered
greatly. For this reason, Desikar decided to protect Temples and Mutts
and created a force for this purpose. Desikar found a friend in Vallala,
as they were both working with this same purpose.
Construction and development of Tiruvanamalai Temple:
The Puranas trace its origin to one of the “Panchabhuta Khetras”, but
historically, its development and construction was found during the
Chola period c.8th century and continued through other dynasties.
However, as the constructed structure could collapse over time, a
renovated Temple might have existed continuously. Thus, Rajaraja,
Rajendra, Vallala, Harihara, Bukka, Krishnadevaraya, and others of
various dynasties and feudatories were involved in this constant,
ongoing work. The Gopurams were constructed by different Kings—e.g. the
Kili Gopuram by Vira Rajendra Chola c.1063 CE, the Kitti/smaller
Gopurams by Vallala (13th – 14th century) and others in later periods.
The construction of the four enclosing walls of the Temple were started
under the reign of Achyuta Ranmachandra Nayak in 1365. During the period
Deivasigamani Desikar infused bhakti, instilled philosophy and
developed patriotism to preserve and protect Temples—as they were
vulnerable to continuous attack and destruction. Desikar revived
construction by installing the Linga brought from Kalahasti. Thus, local
people awakened to the necessity of protecting Temples. Desikar was
also in charge of the administration of Tiruvannamalai Temple in the
position of Head Priest. His acts have been recorded in inscriptions
found on the northern wall of the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple.
Vira-Saiva and Jangam division in Tamizhagam:
A commentary of uncertain date to the Siddhantasaravali of Trilocana
Sivacarya, mentions that Rajendra imported Saiva bhakthas from the banks
of the Ganges into his own kingdom and established them in Kanchipuri
and the Cola country. The Sivacharya may have initiated this migration
of Saivities to the South in order that they might escape persecution
and inconvenient conditions in the North due to the changed state and
Cholas resorting to “tantric practices”. At the same time Basaveswara
(1134-1196) also introduced Kashmira Virasaiva to Karnataka in the form
of Lingayatism as an antidote to the prevailing dominant Jainism.
Vira-Saiva or Lingayatism was established and Jangams or Jangamas
(Saivite order priests or gurus) initiated others. Vallala was a Jain
convert to Vira-Saivism and took a great interest in Saivam because of
his friend Deivasigamani Desikar. Arunachalapuranam specifically points
out that Lord Siva appeared as Jangama asking alms from Vallala. Thus,
it is evident that Vira-Saiva groups spread to Tamizhagam during this
period. In other words, Desikar organised youth groups under the
Vira-Saiva banner to protect Temples.
Consolidation of Vallala III:
At that time Vallala or Ballala III of the Hoyasala dynasty was in
power. As Pandyas were routed, Yadhavas lost control and thus Vallala
tried to strengthen his position from Tiruvannamalai by uniting the
broken Hoysala areas. Thus, he was in control of what are the present
day areas of; Karnataka, parts of the Kaveri Delta between Komgu and
Chola territories of Tamil Nadu, and parts of Western AP and Deccan. As
he suffered heavily at the hands of Malikafur, he decided to prepare for
such attacks in the future. For that, he started a strategy of
administration and governance from capitals at; Dwarasamudra,
Tiruvannamalai and Kannanur (near Samayapuram/Srirangam). He was at
Tiruvannamalai in the years 1318, 1328, 1341, 1342 and 1343.
Family tree of the last Hoysalas kings
The dynasty began in 1022 and ended with Vallalan IV. He hired
Mohammedans into his army as soldiers and mercenaries. Incidentally,
Harihara and Bukka were his commanders, (who later reconverted to the
Hindu religion). He established another capital at Hosapattna on the
banks of Thungabhadra, later known as “Vijayangar” to counter
Mohammedans and consolidate Hindu Kings. He encouraged and developed
cultivation between the rivers of Thungabhadra and Kaveri, getting
maximum revenue which was in turn spent on building Temples and
promoting the fine arts.
Vallala Tax collected, used for the building of Temple
Vallala levied and collected different taxes as follows: One of his
inscriptions, No. 303, carved in 1341, towards the end of his reign,
gives details of some taxes imposed on his subjects, it is simply a list
of taxes deemed worthy of mention in one edict.
1) a tax on goldsmiths; 2) a tax on tailors; 3) a tax on oil presses;
4) a tax on looms; 5) a tax on fishing; 6) a tax on doors; 7) a tax
on owning a mirror; 8) a tax on the plot of land on which one lived;
9) a fee payable to village rulers; 10) a special tax for some people
who had to supply a free ox to the government; 11) a tax to be paid in
gold—by whom and what for is not mentioned; 12) a general government
levy under which ‘common people’ had to supply goods to the government.
As well as taxation, he also increased agricultural production thereby
helping workers engaged in various agriculture related industries. A tax
as a mark of submission known as the “Valldladevar-vari” was levied
over the area. The grant of the village of Tirupati (as a Sarvamdnya by
Tiruvenkatanatha in his 12th year) was one of the items of taxation
remitted by him in favour of the Temple. The vari/tax was a kind of
tribute levied and collected for the benefit of the Hoysala king. In
addition to such taxes, a new tax bearing the name of King Vallalan
himself was introduced—but it was not mentioned who was to pay the tax.
The ordinance was promulgated on January 4th, 1341, at a time when King
Vallalan was living in Tiruvannamalai and using it as a base for
military adventure against the Muslim rulers of Madurai. The tax may
therefore have been a special war levy.
The Development of “Five Temples Devasthanam”:
For some reasons, the Pontiff of Tiruvannamalai Mutt shifted to
Piranmalai during the 18th century. Piranmalai is also known as
“Tirukkodungundram” and is praised with songs. The Temple of
Tirukkodungundram was patronised by the Kings of Pandya during the
Vijayanagaram period. It flourished during the periods of Sivacharyas of
Lakshattayayi lineage and Isanya Mutt Heads. To carry out Temple
service, the Temples of Piranmalai, Tiruppattur, Tirukkolakkudi,
Mattiyur and Tirkkodungundram were brought under the category of “Five
Temples Devasthanam” for effective administrative purposes. During the
reign of the Maruthu brothers, the administration was vested with
Piranmalai and then to Tiruvannamalai. After this only, it was
established at Kundrakkudi.
Tiruvannamalai Adheenam established and shifted to Kundrakkudi:
As Deivasigamani Desikar had been a staunch follower of Saiva philosophy
and religion, he wanted to inculcate values in the minds of youth and
society. He established Tiruvannamalai Adheenam for the purpose and the
following were once occupants of the Mutt:
1) Deivasigamani; 2) Thandavaraya; 3) Vinayatirtha; 4)
Kanakasabapati; 5) Velappa; 6) Subramanya; 7) Rudrakoti; 8)
Sadasiva; 9) Kannappa; 10) Masilamani; 11) Chandrasekara; 12)
Kumaragurupara; 13) Ambalavana; 14) Arunagiri; 15) Kandappa;
16) Swaminatha
After Swaminatha, when Nagalinga was the pontiff, around 1750, the
inmates of the Mutt migrated to Kundarkkudi due to the unfavourable
conditions that had developed.
A sculpture sequentially depicting a miraculous event:
An important episode of Desikar appears as a sculpture on the third
prakaram compound wall surrounding the Garba-gruha (Sanctum Sanctorum)
opposite the Stala-vruksha (Sacred Tree of the Temple). A miraculous
event occurred during the reign of Vira Vallala Deva (1268-1348) which
has been depicted on that Temple wall. It is a serial sculpture which
depicts events sequentially. Deivasigamani Desikar is depicted at one
side coming in a palanquin. The coming of Vira Vallala is depicted at
the other end surrounded with his army. One of the horses was bitten by a
snake. As per the request of the King, Desikar raised the dead-horse.
Thus, he went away happily with the horse. In short, the episode points
out the importance of the horse during this period. This miraculous
event was known to the King of Pudukkoottai and he invited Desikar to
his Kingdom. He also donated 300 villages for the purpose. Desikar
reportedly stayed there and returned to Tiruvannamalai only during his
last days. The line of Pudukkoottai King is interesting in the context
that his kingdom was also affected by intrusions of Mohammedan armies.
Tiruvannamalai Temple attacked in 1342 or 1348
Vallala was taken to Madurai, killed and skinned in 1348. Giazuddin
turned his attention towards Tiruvannamalai, as he visualised enormous
wealth would be hoarded in the Temple. As Vallala reportedly engaged in
massive Temple construction with collected tax revenues, Giazuddin sent
his army to loot the Temple. But, there were only devotees safeguarding
the Temple per the directions of Deivasaigamani Desikar. As the Hoysala
sculptures are found in damaged condition and located at different
parts of the Temple, it is evident the Mohammedan army would have
indulged in iconoclasm. As devotees offered resistance, probably, under
Desikar, they would have been killed. As otherwise the year of 1348
would not have coincided for both Vallala and Desikar. However, his body
must have been buried with honour, as later hagiographic records assert
that he attained “jivan-samadhi”. Within 100 years, the surroundings of
the “Gurumurtham” changed completely with encroachments and
urbanisation.
How could both have died in 1348?
The dates of Deivasigamani Desikar (1291-1348) and Vira Vallala Deva
(1268-1348) are intriguing as both died in the same year. It could not
be an accidental or an incidental occurrence. When they died, they would
have been 80 and 57 years old respectively. When Vallala was 23 years
old, Desikar would have just been born. As Vallala constructed
Tiruvannamalai Temple, Desikar would have supported his efforts. When
Malikafur invaded in 1311, they would have been 43 and 20 years old—thus
they would have realised the iconoclastic and devastating nature of the
Mohammedan army. The cruel killing of Vallala by Giazuddhin has been
recorded by Ibn Batuta himself. However, how Desikar also died in the
same year is not known. Perhaps, in protecting Tiruvannamalai Temple, he
might have sacrificed his life—and it is that which is hagiographed
later as “attaining Jiva samadhi”. In other words, mythologisation of
history and historicisation of myth have been common feature in Indian
historiography circumventing the principles of myth-history.
Why Vallala and Desikar were targeted?:
Vallala was a convert from the Jain religion when he started
co-operating with Desikar. As Vallala was moving to different places, he
could observe the activities of Mohammedan groups known variously as;
Arabs, Turks, Pathana, Persians and so on. Soldiers of the Delhi Sultan
were stationed at Dwarasamudra as a part of the pact. In fact, he
himself engaged many Mohammedan soldiers in his army. As both opposed
the Mohammedan intrusion into South India, strategically encountering
and effectively combating, they took cognisance of them and decided to
eliminate them at any cost. The Mohammedan pattern of raid, battle and
war never followed any code of conduct or ethics, while Hindus
unwittingly followed specified codes and were regularly defeated.
The horse trade made it necessary to induct Mohammedans into his army as
trainers, breeders and keepers of horses and cavalry. As some
researchers point out the horse trade was of political importance and a
source of tension between the Delhi Sultanate and horse traders who
dealt with South India States, their enemies. Nur al-ma’arif testifies
that Yemen horses were also sold in Malabar, particularly in both
Fakanur and Manjalur seaports linked with the Hoysala State which was
regularly opposed to its neighbouring Pandyas. Actually, horse exports
from Aden were directed to the Hindu States of the western and eastern
coast. Delhi Sultans played double game in horse trade, as they
pretended to forbid traders from conducting business inside their
territory. Therefore, the act of seizure and carrying of horses from
South Indian Kings was blatant land-piracy, which India had previously
never heard of or witnessed. Hence, Vallala and Desikar were against
breeding horses. Thus the sculptures succinctly prove the fact that
Desikar “was raising a dead horse”. However, the Mohammedans of
Vallala’s army reacted as “Mohammedans”, as could be seen from the
Kannanur episode. In the same way Desikar might have been finished off
during the attack on Tiruvannamalai in 1348.
Desikar’s Jiva-samadhi – mystified hagiographed or historical?:
Had Tiruvannamalai been attacked by the army of the Madurai Sultan, the
protectors of the Temple would have been killed. The mutilated and
damaged sculptures of the Temple point to such an encounter. As Desikar
developed, “Vira-Saiva” protectors they would have fought with the
Mohammedans, have been over-powered and killed. In such a bloody
encounter, Desikar might have also been killed. However, his body must
have been taken away and buried at a place, now known as “Gurumurtham”.
Thus now his “Jiva-samadhi” is at Kizhnathur, 1.5 kms away from
Tiruvannamalai Temple. A Temple has been constructed on it and is known
as “Gurumurtham”. About 60 years previously, it was a natural
surrounding with mango groves. It is under the control of Kundarkkudi
Mutt.
Horse factor and ruining of economy:
Malikafur looted wealth and also elephants and horses. The taking away
of 20,000 horses inflicted a great loss on the treasury. Moreover, the
Mohammedans were using horses for their swift raids, speedy runaways and
quick-loots. At one side, they were supplying the horses to the Indian
Kings and on the other side they were carrying on with tactics to rob
the Indian treasury. Above all, during the raids, wealth in kind was
also plundered. Taking a clue from Marco Polo, historians like Romila
Thapar opined that “Imported horses became an expensive commodity
because horse breeding was never successful in India, perhaps due to the
different climatic, soil and pastoral conditions”. But, during the
Hoysala period, imported horses were mated with local horses to produce
cross breeds. In fact, scholars have pointed out that Hoysala sculptures
depict such features. Therefore, the concern of Desikar for horses as
depicted in the sculpture of “raising a dead horse” is implied in such
horse breeding and economy.
Inference based on the historical interpretation:
The role of Vallala III encountering and restricting Mohammedans in
South India has been significant. In such an extraordinary and
prodigious task, he sacrificed two capitals, Dwarasamudra and Kannanur,
and of course his life at 80. Incidentally, Deivasigamani Desikar
co-operated, collaborated and strategically worked with him. He might
have been instrumental in bringing Vira-Saivas to Tiruvannamalai to
protect the Temple. As both confronted Mohammedans in all possible ways,
they were mercilessly eliminated (as found in historical documents and
other circumstantial evidence). His fall coincided with the rise of the
Viyayanagara Empire. Incidentally, Harihara-Bukka the founders of the
Empire were reportedly reconverted back to the Hindu-fold. Thus, both
played a crucial role in the betterment of the Saiva religion,
development of Saiva-philosophy and construction of Tiruvannamalai
Temple.
Conclusion in the context of Sacred geographies, religion cultures and popular practices in History and imagination:
Hoysala art and architecture has spread in the context of sacred
geography well into the Southern states of present India, and can be
seen in the Temples of Tiruvannamalai, Madurai and Kannanur. The
religious culture exhibited through the Vira-Saiva cult proves the
resistance offered against iconoclast forces. Popular practices i.e.
festivals celebrated in Tiruvannamalai establish historical facts, in a
couched and mythologised manner.
[By: K.V. Ramakrishna Rao]
