Indian Antiquary Vol 58

SR No.: 032550
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 408
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 69

Art, 1929 )
THE EMPIRE OF ORISSA
THE EMPIRE OF ORISSA. BY PROF. R. D. BANERJI, M.A.
(Continued from p. 33.) The last king of the Vodeyar or Yadava dynasty had ceased to occupy the throne sometime after 1478, and from 1486 to 1493 Narasimha was the recognised sovereign of Vijayanagara. Yet it was exactly during this period that the northern districts of Telingana were wrested by Purushottama from the Empire of Vijayanagara. What followed exactly is extremely difficult to ascertain even now. SAļuva Narasimha is regarded by contemporary European writers as being supreme in Southern India. Yet we find that Telinganâ was slipping out of his grasp during the earlier part of his actual reign. There are reasons to suppose that towards the end of his reign Purushottama attacked Vijayanagara and brought the idol Sakshigopala and a jewelled throne from that place. As noticed by the late Mr. Manmohan Chakravarti in his edition of the Bengali poem Sri Chaitanya-Charitamsita by the Vaishnava saint Krishna-Dasa Kaviraja, Purushottama conquered Vijayanagara and brought a jewelled throne and the idol of Sakshigopala from Vidyanagara. The throne was presented to Jagannatha at Puri and idol was dedicated at Katak". Those who have examined the celebrated ratna-vedi, or the stone altar on which the wooden images of Jagannatha, Subhadra and Balarama are placed in the temple at Puri, must have noticed a surprising resemblance of the decorative motifs to those inside the Hazara-Ramaswami temple at Hampe or Vijayanagara. The upper front ends of the ratna-vedî at Puri are incomplete and several stone members appear to be missing. I think that the ratna-vedt is the actual jewelled throne brought by Purushottama from Vijayanagara. There are no reasons to disbelieve Gosvami Krishnadasa Kaviraja, as he was a contemporary of Purushottama and his son Pratâparudra and was no court-sycophant. He had no reason to be grateful to the kings of Orissa and wrote his work after his retirement to Bsindavana, Besides this statement there are many other reasons for helieving that the whole of the eastern coast was conquered by the kings of Orissa during the reigns of Saluva Narasimha and his sons. Inscriptions of his son and successor, Pratâ parudra, have been discovered as far south as Udayagiri and Kâñchi or Conjeeveram. It is difficult to determine the exact chronology of the events connected with the reconquest of the eastern coast under Purushottama. He lost it during the first six years of his reign and he himself regained it during the last ten. Oriya or Bengali writers do not mention a campaign against Vijayanagara during the reiga of his son, but do so in his case. It is quite possible that the reconquest of tho Northern Tamil districts took place after the death of Såluvs Narasimha in 1493 and during the reign of Immadi Narasimha (1493-98). According to the calculations of the late Mr. Manmohan Chakravarti, Purushottarna died in 1496-97, a date which cannot be very far removed from the truth. The same writer, observing in 1900, stated that "the few details given in the Madala Panji are mainly taken up in describing an expedition of this king into Kanichi. If there be any truth in it, then it is likely connected with the raid of the Bahmani king Muhammad Shah II, who in A.D. 1477-8 made a dash towards Conjeeveram, and returned with an im mense booty?". In the first place the late Mr. Chakravarti committed the usual mistake of all earlier writers of following the Bahmanî genealogy of Firishta, though Mujor J. S. King's new genealogy was in print when he wrote. The Bahmani genealogy based on the Burhan-i-ma'asir has been accepted, and that of Firishta 38 definitely rejected by subsequent writers 24. Muhammad Shah II Bahmani should be taken to be Muhammad Shah III Bahmanî. The same mistake has been committed recently by Dr. L. D. Barnett in his paper on "The Potavaram Grant of Purushottama-deva"26. It has been proved above that it was
31 Madhya Lua, Chap. 6, Baiga visi edition, p. 98. 23 JASB., vol. LXIX, p. 184. 28 Ind. Ant., vol. XXVIII, p. 121. 34 Cataloyue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, vol. II, part II, p. 198, by H. N. Wright, 1.c.8. 36 Epi. Ind., vol. XIII, p. 156.