Talk:Pemmasani Nayaks

Problems
Aside from the grammar, style, and tone (all of which need work) and the wikification (unwikified lead, etc.), the article is couched in very one-sided language; it makes very dogmatic statements about events with no sign that there might be alternative interpretations and views. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing
The editing process is on. Improvements are being carried out.Kumarrao 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please give sources for new material, otherwise your work might be reverted. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 09:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing
Dear Etitis, I addded new references. I shall Wikify the article soon and correct style, grammar etc.,Kumarrao 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Huge edit
, please don't make huge edits like this. One change at a time please.

Sidebar templates are being deleted from all over Wikipedia because they are apparently bad on mobile devices. You shouldn't be adding one here when there isn't even a whole lot to navigate.

Also please don't put anything into the "Sources" section unless you have WP:HISTRS. Your additional sentence didn't also have anything about "sources". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I also don't think you need to keep repeating "Pemmasani" on every line of the dynastic listing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry Kautilya3 . I will avoid the sidebar template, but will restore the remaining content because I did source it from both Indian and International scholars, as per the request to avoid Andhra historians. I apologize. --Callofduty259 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 I got rid of the navigation template. I am not sure what you mean about my additional sentences not having sources. Almost all of them, besides ones already backed up sources in the article, have a credible source behind it. If you find a source is not satisfactory, please do let me know so that alternative ones may be found. --Callofduty259 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you realize that you added a sentence to a section called Sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not. I have corrected it to ensure that section's integrity is preserved. Callofduty259 (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You have now moved the sentence to the lead, which makes it worse. I am reproducing it below:

Where do the sources say "association with Vijayanagara"? Please provide a quotation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 I have included the quote. Gandikota Fort was part of the Vijayanagara Empire and by Devaraya II's the all parts of Rayalaseema, including Gandikota, was in Vijayanagara hands. Please check the page for Devaraya II for the proof. The word association is the term used N.S Ramachandra Murthy to describe their relationship. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't have to mess with the article for the time being. Let us discuss it here first. If the source says "associated with Gandikota", how can you change it to "associated with the Vijayanagara Empire". The empire is a much bigger place than Gandikota, is it not? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem. You raise a very fair point Kautilya3 . "The Pemmasani Chiefs of Gandikota : Gandikota (Jammala- madugu Taluk) teems with scenes of historical importance and had been the capital of the Pemmasani chiefs, the loyal subordinates of Vijayanagar Empire from the time of Bukka I …"

Their association with Gandikota started during the reign of Devaraya II, but their association with Vijayanagara started with Bukka I. In light of this, we can make the change to association with Gandikota and chiefs to Vijayanagara to create a distinction. Callofduty259 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 to improve the article, I'll add "The Pemmasani's association with the Vijayanagara Empire began during the reign of Bukka Raya I. [Then the part about their association with Gandikota during Devaraya II]." This will alleviate your concern about making a distinction and will more accurately reflect the Pemmasanis' connection to VijayanagaraCallofduty259 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added the citation and updated it as per your suggestion to change it from Vijayanagara to Gandikota. I also noted their initial status as "loyal subordinates" of Bukka Raya I. Hopefully, this will fix the concern. Thank you Kautilya3 for suggesting the improvements to better reflect historical records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofduty259 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. There is no evidence that the Pemmasani's served the empire until the time of Aliya Rama Raya. As far as I can see they were local commanders of Gandikota serving under certain "Nandyala chiefs" whose amaram it was. You have been ignoring the evidence mentioned in your own source, p.203. If the Pemmasanis were big shot commanders of the empire, and they held Gandikota at the time of Bukka I, there is no way that it could have been given away to Nandyaka chiefs. Kaifiyats are not reliable historical records, but contain a lot of folklore. They can also be retroactively doctored, unlike inscriptions. Even copper-plate grants are known to have been altered in later times, but they are certainly better than kaifiyats. Wagoner's book, which is the only internationally vetted source available for the topic, says that Pemmasanis served the Aravidu dynasty. That is all we can say. The Venkateswara University Journal, whose snippet view you are basing a big story on, is no good. We can't contradict what the international sources say.
 * You might also see this PhD thesis, which summarises all the available evidence on Gandikota in Chapter 3. It also repeats a lot of the stuff mentioned in the Murthy book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. "I don't think so" is not sufficient to contradict the work of university publishings, which clearly state that the Pemmasanis were associated with Vijayanagara Empire beginning with Bukka Raya I. I have never stated that they held Gandikota at time of Bukka Raya and neither have the sources. They are defined as "loyal subordinates" under Bukka Raya, which is what I phrased it as. Wagoner's book never says that they didn't serve the previous dynasties. I am perfectly fine with leaving their start of service with Devaraya II because the existing kaifiyats, which in this specific case have no evidence of being doctored, clearly attest to that and is acknowledged by various historians. Moreover, "As far as I can see they were local commanders of Gandikota serving under certain "Nandyala chiefs" whose amaram it was". You may want to look farther to see because this is not accurate. B. Ramaraju clearly states, "He was the brother of Pemmasani Ramalinganayaka commander-in-chief of Sri Krishnadevaraya (1509-1530) " - https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=pgDjAAAAMAAJ. Wagoner himself notes how Pemmasani Ramalinga was an "Amaranayaka" and commander directly for Krishnadevaraya - https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=_A1uAAAAMAAJ&q=pemmasani+wagoner&dq=pemmasani+wagoner&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi61JTP49riAhWEv7wKHR3JATAQ6AEIJzAA. Moreover, Wagoner clearly defines Pemmasani Ramalinga on page 252 as "the Pemmasani chief in control of Gandikota". So they were neither just local commanders nor serving in Gandikota under the Nandyala Chiefs. Burton Stein clearly states that both the Pemmasanis and Nandyala Chiefs were "powerful" and "commanded large mercenary armies" - https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=OpxeaYQbGDMC&pg=PA88&dq=pemmasani+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmoaD84triAhUc87wKHYLICuMQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=pemmasani%20stein&f=false. So this by all accounts, even international standards, clearly shows that the Pemmasanis were not subordinates at Gandikota, but directly controlled it and were indeed "powerful" [The words of Stein] commanders in Vijayanagara. I suggest you do further reading before stating "There is no evidence that the Pemmasani's served the empire until the time of Aliya Rama Raya." There are numerous citations attesting to their service to the Empire from the Sangama Dynasty. Please provide sources that directly contradict that assertion of Murthy and others that Pemmasani Thimma was in control of Gandikota and Gutti during the reign of Devaraya II. Kautilya3, Wikipedia policies allow for sourced content from reliable historians to be published. There was not a violation of that rule. Callofduty259 (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, no international sources contradicts their prior services before Aravidu. Stein and Wagoner do not. Can you please provide citations that explicitly state that they were not in Vijayanagara's service before the Aravidu Dynasty, which would contradict the work of Murthy, Wagoner, and countless other historians? Moreover, if the Nandyal Chiefs were really superior to the Pemmasanis, why does Wagoner, according to you the only internationally recognized historian on the topic, never mention this superiority. The Nandyal Chiefs are so obscure that you yourself used the word "certain" to describe them. If they really were superior, surely there would have been more historical mentions of them and an explicit statement by the likes of Wagoner or Stein attesting to that. In fact, Wagoner himself clearly states that the Nandyals were Chiefs, while he calls the Pemmasani Ramalinga as a "Commander", and their caste affiliates as "nobles". Please see this citation: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=_A1uAAAAMAAJ&q=wagoner+nandyal&dq=wagoner+nandyal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiii77-59riAhUDEbwKHVJWBf0Q6AEILDAB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofduty259 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * One more thing: "If the Pemmasanis were big shot commanders of the empire, and they held Gandikota at the time of Bukka I, there is no way that it could have been given away to Nandyala chiefs." This statement is completely false. The Indian History Congress Publication clearly states that "The administration of the Sima of Gandikota passed from the hands of the Pemmasani chiefs to the Nandyala chiefs. The chiefs of the Nandyala family held their sway over the region upto Saka 1520. " Saka 1520 was the year 1422, the very that Thimma Nayudu's reign over Gandikota is to have started after the Nandyala influence ended. Moreover, the word transferred means that the Pemmasanis had control of Gandikota before Devaraya II, which would validate their service to the Vijayanagara before him and their status. Also please note that under Bukka I, the Empire was still in its infancy and growing, so such transfers while territorial gains are being made is not really surprising. Moreover, the Pemmasanis and Nandayalas are addressed as chiefs and does not show that one is subordinate to the other. --Callofduty259 (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry another citations - "The country round Gandikota and neighbouring towns in the modern Cuddapah and Anantapur districts of Madras then belonged to Timma Nayar [Pemmasani Cina ( Chinna ) of Telugu records, Timma Nayudu], a raja, subordinate to Vijaynagar" . This further proves that the Pemmasanis were feudatory kings and also only subordinate to Vijayanagara..
 * The Question now is how do we move forward from here? I have provided more than enough sources that clearly attest to their service and control of regions during the Sangama Dynasty, including from the Indian History Congress and historians like Murthy. In no way does Wagoner contradict the V. University Publication or Murthy's work. If you cannot cite sources explicitly disproving their involvement before the Aravidus [Note: I mean historians and scholars, and not from some hypothetical and unsubstantiated claim of forgery of the Kaifiyat involving the Pemmasanis. If you can provide a citation of a historian that says clearly that the Kaifiyats of the Pemmasanis are suspected forgeries, which to my knowledge is non-existent, than a point can be made], then I think the edit I made attesting to the service during the reign of Bukka Raya should be posted. I will say that it is interesting how you have deemed a university publication as "no use". That source is a credible source as per Wikipedia rules. Personal opinions of anyone cannot dictate what is use and of "no use". Callofduty259 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't put up WP:Walls of text. If you are making valid points, it should be possible to state them succinctly. And, you can give full citations for your sources just like on the main page, instead of ugly URLs.

The source that you have cited says:

Again:

The PhD thesis that I mentioned says:

So, the Nandyala chiefs had control of Gandikota from the time of Harihara II till Sadasiva Raya, something like 200 years. Pemmasanis were serving the Nandyala chiefs. The transfer to Pemmasanis happened in AD 1597-98, when Nandyala Krishnama Raju rebelled against Venkata II, the latter deposed him and appointed Pemmasani Timma as the ruler of Gandikota. This is consistent with what Wagoner says:

So, serving the Aravide dynasty is confirmed both by Wagoner and Stein. Serving any of the earlier dynasties is not. But Wagoner seems to admit the possibility that Ramalinga Nayudu served either Krishnadeva Raya or Achyuta Raya, even though there is no direct evidence of it. Rayavachakamu is not evidence, it is literature, historical fiction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Sorry for the URL issue. I am not denying that the Pemmasanis were feudatory rulers of Gandikota during Aravidu. But can we disregard the citation from the Indian History Congress? Murthy himself notes that Gutti and Gandikota were ruled by the Pemmasanis. How do you suggest we reach consensus? Callofduty259 (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)




 * Kautilya3 this above citation clearly attests to the Pemmasanis' earlier service to Vijayanagara. So I think we have established both our points - now the question is now how do we phrase it. Here is my proposal: "The Pemmasani Nayakas' involvement with the Vijayanagara Empire stretches back to Devaraya II. The Pemmasani Nayaks, who were generals and governors for the Vijayanagara Empire for many generations, were commanders of the Gandikota Fort, and before the mid-16th century, the Pemmasanis controlled the Gandikota area on behalf of the Nandyal Chiefs. During the reign of Aliya Rama Raya, the Pemmasanis became the sole feudatory kings of the Gandikota region." I think this phrasing reflects a balanced approach. It acknowledges the sources that corroborate the Pemmasanis' role during the pre-Aravidu Dynasties, and it acknowledges the Nandyal Chiefs role. Callofduty259 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Gandikota history
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. 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:

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.


 * 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.


 * 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)