This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
Hindu Rajput ruler of the kingdom of Amber" (a rather in-your-face mention of identity),
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"
Zafar Khan was a Turkic noble in the employ of Muhammad bin Tughluq" or
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)
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)
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)
Pemmasani Ramalinganayaka, a Kamma chief, offered to attack the enemy with a small force.(This was a different battle, no "pleasures of heaven" here.)
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)
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)
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.
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.[1] 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.
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.
References
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)
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. [1]
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
References
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)
@ 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”. [1]
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:
(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:
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
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)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
Hindu Rajput ruler of the kingdom of Amber" (a rather in-your-face mention of identity),
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"
Zafar Khan was a Turkic noble in the employ of Muhammad bin Tughluq" or
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)
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)
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)
Pemmasani Ramalinganayaka, a Kamma chief, offered to attack the enemy with a small force.(This was a different battle, no "pleasures of heaven" here.)
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)
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)
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.
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.[1] 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.
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.
References
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)
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. [1]
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
References
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)
@ 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”. [1]
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:
(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:
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
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)