Talk:Pemmasani Ramalinga Nayudu

Identities

Utcursch, you say we don't say Gandhi was a "Hindu bania politician". But the page does say in the lead, "Born and raised in a Hindu merchant caste family in coastal Gujarat". See also

• Jai Singh II, "Hindu Rajput ruler of the kingdom of Amber" (a rather in-your-face mention of identity),
• Adikavi Pampa, "a a Kannada Jain poet" of whom it is said, "his grandfather was Abhimanachandra who belonged to the Brahmin caste and hailed from Vangiparru in Kammanadu, Guntur district"
• Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah, "Zafar Khan was a Turkic noble in the employ of Muhammad bin Tughluq" or
• Nizam-ul-Mulk, Asaf Jah I, "a nobleman of Indian and Turkic descent".

More examples can be found I am sure. I don't see us having hard-and-fast rules about mentioning identities. It all depends on the role they play in the notability of the person. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Gandhi's article doesn't introduce him as a bania leader in the very first sentence (or even the first paragraph): Vivek987270 added the caste identity to the very first sentence of the article. As mentioned in my edit, we don't mention this "unless sources indicate that it was an important part of person's identity". For example, B. R. Ambedkar being introduced a Dalit leader makes sense, Gandhi being introduced as a bania leader doesn't. utcursch | talk 22:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the caste identity is indeed important to the notability of this man. The Vijayanagara empire is where the modern Telugu caste system got solidified. The armies of the empire seem to have been organised along caste lines, at least as far as the Telugu castes were concerned. A quote from Wagoner:

Then the king summoned 'Ain-ul-Mulk, Ankusha Rao, Rana Jagadeva, Ganuti Timmappa Nayadu, Rachuri Rami Nayadu, Pemmasani Ramalingama Nayadu, Hande Malta Rao, and Boyi Ramappa, who were his Sons of the Eating Dish from the Eighteen Districts;[18] he also called the military commanders ... and others; he summoned the Reddi princes Bommi Reddi, Naga Reddi, Basuva Reddi, and others; he called for the Kamma Nayakas led by Vithalappa Nayadu; he called for his sons and sons-in-law, for the government officials, and for all the other Amaranayakas.[16] He asked them all how they were and and then asked, “ How many elephants, horsemen, foot soldiers, and retainers do you have?” (p.121)

and another:

Ramalingama Nayadu took leave of the king and came back outside, where he summoned all the nobles of his own caste. Raising his folded hands to greet them, he said, "All these days we have been eating and living off our wages from Rayalu. ... You will be the foundation and life for future generations of our Kamma caste, and you can live on forever in the praise that will always be on others’ lips! So step forward, all of you who will come with me to embrace the pleasures of heaven!” (p.138-139)

While in the first quote he is mentioned separately from the Kamma nayaks (a "Son of the Eating Dish"), the second quote makes clear that he was their general.

The M. Rama Rao source says right off the bat, Pemmasani Ramalinganayaka, a Kamma chief, offered to attack the enemy with a small force. (This was a different battle, no "pleasures of heaven" here.)

So, I think it is clear that the Kamma identity is crucial here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Also posting here the entry in the index, which records that the Kamma was identified as kulam in the original:

Kamma (Kaṃmma kulam, “Kamma caste,” a local Telugu caste of landed cultivators; also Kamma doralu and Kamma doratanālavāru, “nobles of the Kamma [caste],” Ka[ṃ]mma Nāyakulu, “Nayakas of the Kamma kulam”), Kamma nobles present at Krishnadevaraya’s coronation, 87; Kamma Nayakas summoned by Krishnadevaraya to report on the strength of their forces, 121; Kamma Nayakas called by Krishnadevaraya to begin the march against the Turks, 137; Kamma nobles summoned by their leader Pemmasani Ramalingamanayadu and urged to perform an act of heroism in battle in return for the favor and maintenance they have received from Krishnadevaraya, 138; urged to become the foundation and life for future generations of the Kamma caste, 138-139 (p. 244)

"Reddi" wasn't referred to as a kulam. (It was obviously an honorific at that time.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Gandikota history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sorry, building temples in no way implies service to the empire. Anybody with money and influence can build temples. Pemmasanis certainly had that. They were officials of the Nandyala chiefs who held it as amaram.

The Indian History Congress paper that you mentioned earlier is Sriramamurty, Political History of Gandikota (1958). It is a bit old, but fairly comprehensive. It mentions that "Gandikota Sima" appears in inscriptions as an administrative division only from the time of Krishnadevaraya. Earlier it was just a village/town. He believes the fortification happened at this time. The Sima seems to have extended to the whole of modern Anantapur and Cudappah districts. Krishnadevaraya also appointed Brahmins to head his simas, including this one. The Nandyala chiefs would have now become subordinates to the Brahmin governors. Pemmasanis, being the local commanders of Gandikota, would have become more influential. However, they are never mentioned as governors of the Gandikota sima itself, even though lots of names are available from inscriptions. (These can also be found in the Subba Rao thesis as well.)

It is not clear what happened after Krishnadevaraya. But we know that, at the time of Aliya Ramaraja's power struggle, Erra Thimmanayudu was in charge of the Gandikota fort and Ramaraya was under his protection. Since there is no mention of another governor, Sriramamurty assumes that Erra Timma must have been the governor. Then he believes that Sadasivaraya took it away from Erra Timma and gave it to Nandyala chiefs (who eventually rebelled as I mentioned earlier). This is far-fetched. Since Pemmasanis were at the height of their influence and formed the backbone of the empire, it would be ridiculous for the emperor to take it away from them. The modern sources, Ramachandra Murthy and Subba Rao, don't make this inference. Rather, they say that the amaram of the Nandyala chiefs was undisturbed until the time of their rebellion.

It was after this rebellion that Erra Timmanayudu became the feudatory ruler of Gandikota. It was after this that the propaganda machine was started to give a glorified genealogy to Pemmasanis. Ramalinga Nayudu was now made into a leader of all the "Kamma nayakas" of Krishnadevaraya, a "son of the eating dish", and set opposite the "Reddy princes". All of these are fictitious. Ramalinganayudu would have moved out of Gandikota at this time and joined the imperial forces in the campaign against the Gajpatis etc. But there is no historical corroboration of him having been a supercommander of any sort. Wagoner says:

The unavoidable conclusion is that the Rayavachakamu cannot possibly be a contemporaneous report in Krishnadevaraya's reign, that it is instead a later historiographic representation of those events, anachronistically cast—for reasons to be explored presently—in the form of a diplomatic report of the period.(Wagoner, Tidings of the king 1993, pp. 7–8)

This propaganda machine continues to this day. If you are asking where does Wagoner contradict it, here is where he does. He also says "it is not clear" whether Ramalinga Nayudu served Krishnadeva Raya or "some later ruler". That means there are no historical records available and all the mumbo-jumbo put out by Andhra historians is purely fictitious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think both of us have made our point. Let's stick to reaching a consensus on phrasing. Here is an adjustment of the phrasing. Please also give your input on this phrasing when you critique, so we can move to address it.

Initially, the Pemmasani Nayakas were influential commanders in the Gandikota region for the Nandyala Chiefs during the reign of Devaraya II. They were governors of the Gandikota region on behalf of the Nandyalas during the reign of reign of Sadasiva Raya. During the Aravidu Dynasty, the Pemmasanis became the sole feudatory kings of the Gandikota region, and their army was the vanguard of the Vijayanagara Empire.

Kautilya3 In my above phrasing, I have utilized your own words in that the Pemmasanis had influence as commanders in the Gandikota region for the Nandyala Chiefs. As per what you have stated, I have not included the word service since it has been a point of contention nor involvement nor association. The quote that you provided from Murthy, asserts that the Pemmasanis were governors on behalf of the Nandyalas of the Gandikota region during Sadasiva's reign. The last point is attested by Stein. This is a good compromise that reflects both of our contentions based on sources. If you have an object to a part of the phrasing, please provide an alternative phrasing for that portion. I think we are nearing a consensus. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing content. This is a good way of finding consensus. Some problemss with your proposal:

• "influential commanders". No evidence of them being influential. Until Krishnadevaraya created the "Gandikota sima", it was just another fort in the countryside, tagged on to Nandyala region. Gandikota is dry land. There is nothing there to make it influential, except its strategic military significance, which didn't come into play until Krishnadevaraya's time.
• "Gandikota region". Again there is no evidence of a region being attached to Gandikota until the time of Krishnadevaraya.
• Time jump. Deva Raya II (r. 1406–1422) and Sadasiva Raya (r. 1543–1567) are separated by about 150 years. Moreover, Sadasiva Raya gave Gandikota to the Nandyala chiefs, not to Pemmasanis: The first Nandyala chief to rule over the Gandikota fort was according to an inscription from Mopur dated in saka 1466, in the reign of Sadasiva, Mahamandalesvara, Timmayadeva Maharaja, son of Narasingayadeva Maharaja and grandson of Aubhaladeva Maharaja. He acted as the governor of the fort from Saka 1466 to 1470. It was Venkatapati Raya II (r. 1586–1614) that gave the fort (not the sima) to Pemmasanis. A bigger chunk of the sima was given to Matli Ellamaraja. This was in 1598. So, now we are approaching a time gap of 200 years.
• You are also glorifying Pemmasanis by calling them "kings". They are always referred to as "nayakas" in the sources, in contrast to the Nandyala and Matli chiefs who are referred to as "rajas". You can't call them "kings" without a proper source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating the effort, and I similarly appreciate yours. Please see this new proposal that I have taught over that reflect both sources.

According to a Kaifiyat, Pemmasani Timma Nayaka was in control of Gutti and Gandikota during the reign of Devaraya II. However, recent scholars have stated that the Pemmasani Nayakas were commanders at Gandikota for the Nandyala Chiefs during the reign of Devaraya II. They mainly served as military commanders until the Aravidu Dynasty. During the Aravidu Dynasty, the Pemmasanis became the sole feudatory rulers of the Gandikota region, and their army was the vanguard of the Vijayanagara Empire.

In my approach to the above phrasing, I have taken out influential and region, which addresses your first two concerns. In order to address the time jump, I have written that they served as military commanders until Aravidu Dynasty. To avoid glorifying, I have changed king to rulers, which they were. Ruling an area does not mean kingship, which everyone acknowledges they never had. Finally, I added in the Kaifiyat. It is important to mention what the Kaifiyats say, and that modern scholars say something else. This presents both cases, which are backed up by scholarly sources. As the Kaifiyats were never proved forgeries nor have any scholars have said so, it is appropriate for them to be mentioned. Even if you disagree with what the Kaifiyat says, it has been written that it states a certain thing by Murthy and others. Callofduty259 (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If you do not find the latter proposal agreeable, another one is to delete that contentious section in the main part of the article. This will solve the conflict at hand. Callofduty259 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

• Murthy, N. S. Ramachandra (1996), Forts of Āndhra Pradesh: From the Earliest Times Upto 16th C. A.D., Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, ISBN 978-81-86050-03-3
• Rao, S. Subba (2000), Gandikota a study, Sri Krishnadevaraya University / Shodhganga
• Wagoner, Phillip B. (1993), Tidings of the king: a translation and ethnohistorical analysis of the Rāyavācakamu, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-1495-3
• Sriramamurty, Yellapracada (1958), "Political History of Gaṅḍikōṭa during the Vijayanagar Period 1336 to 1669 A.D.", Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 21: 282–289, JSTOR 44145213

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undiscussed page move

Ventrun, you have moved the page to "Nayaka" again. Did you check the citation given for the name? Or the quotations from Rayavacamu given above? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources?

LovSLif, I believe you are quoting primary sources attributing them to historians. For example, an you please provide the url or quotation for this source?

Krishnaswami Aiyangar, an Indian historian, wrote that Ramalinga Nayudu was "one of the chief generals" of Krishnadevaraya.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3 These are not primary sources, but the work of Sakkotai Aiyangar.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924024120150/page/n151?q=Pemmasani+Ramalinga Please check above link. It takes you to the full book where these quotes are clearly attributed to Sakkotai and not primary sources, such as inscriptions. By LovSLif (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 The first quote is attributed to the Rayavackyamu, so I will edit that in. But, the second quote of the Battle of Raichur was an addendum added bby Sakkotai. The second quote is his own. By LovSLif (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The word "Sources" in the book title means historical texts. The entire volume contains extracts from historical sources, which are all WP:PRIMARY. So, you should not use this volume at all.

Further, you should also not use any local historians who treat these sources as if they are authentic, because Wagoner has clarified that these are all fictitious, having been written almost a century after the actual date of the purported events.

There is no evidence that Ramalinga Nayudu existed in the time of Krishnadevaraya at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We had similar issue with Pallavas where some local (Indian) historians that I cited were not included. Anyways, I have wrote what the texts says. Sakkotai is a well renowned scholar on Vijayanagara topics. His work has influence. The second quote is clearly derived from Sakkotai's interpretations and have attributed as such. By LovSLif (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, we did not have any "issues" at Pallavas article. But you know the drill now. Please include full citations, urls for sources, and quotations where the sources are not available on line. Author, title of the work and date are always required. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would rather not relitigate that Pallava discussion in this page. I will find full textual citations and quotes to reinstate the work. By the way, Burton Stein uses the Rayavachakamu several times in The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara. Much of what we know about Vijayanagara comes from such sources or Kavyas, including Allasani Peddanna's work. Moreover, this is what Em Kulasekhararavu, stated in regards to the Rayavachakamu: "Rayavachakamu' is written in the spoken language of the day. Perhaps, the writer did not bother about the literary importance of the book, since he merely wanted to record important historical events of his times." It is highly regarded. In fact, Siba Pada Sen writes "It is interesting to note that the Rayavachakamu resembles Nuniz's account in several details." The accounts of Nuniz were heavily used by Robert Sewell. By LovSLif (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wagoner got it wrong

@LovSLif:, you added this sentence to the lead paragraph:

Phillip Wagoner describes Pemmasani Ramalinga as “the Pemmasani chief in control of Gandikota sima under either Krishnadevaraya or Achyutaraya”.

I am afraid this is wrong based on the much more thorough research into Gandikota carried out by Sriramamurty, whose full account can be found in his PhD thesis:

• Sriramamurty, Y. (1973), "The Pemmasani Family" (PDF), Studies in the History of the Telugu country during the Vijayanagara period 1336 to 1650 A D, Karnatak University/Shodhganga

(The "Pemmasani Family" chapter seems to be a reproduction of Sriramamurty 1964 that you have been using from the Andhra Historical Society.)

Three kinds of involvement of the family members with Gandikota are found in this narrative:

• Commandants of the Gandikota fort (which might have been an important position because Gandikota seems to have been a strategic fort bordering on the Kondavidu kingdom and later Gajapati domains).
• Governors of Gandikota sima (district). This was given to the Pemmasanis only during the rule of Venkatapatiraya. See Talk:Pemmasani Nayaks#Gandikota history
• Other members of the family who served either in the capital or in other provinces, but probably regarded as being representative of Gandikota.

The Ramalinga Nayudu of this page is Ramalinganayudu II on page 267 of the thesis chapter. Sriramamurty did not find any evidence of Ramalinganayudu ruling in Gandikota (as either commandant or governor). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: I have removed that quote from Wagoner and a statement sourced from another text, this one written by an Ashtadiggaja. Thanks By LovSLif (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Krishnarayavijayam is the same content as Rayavacakamu in verse form. See Wagoner 1993, pp. 18–19. Its author is likely from the 17th century, and certainly not one of the Ashtadiggajas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Bugga Ramalingeswara temple

I am not confident that this Ramalinga Nayudu was the builder of the Ramalingeswara Temple. It must have been his grandfather, who was based in Tadipatri and built a fort there (according to Sriramamurty). The grandson seems to have spent most of his time in the capital, being in the inner circle of Krishnadevaraya and participating in his many campaigns. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3. Thanks for highlighting this. I will strike that from the main-article. It seems that the confusions stems from the lack of historians differentiating between the various Ramalingas with either a I or II. By LovSLif (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)