IDENTIFICATION OF VITTHALA IN VITTHA TEMPLE BY DR. C. NARAYANA RAO

BY

Dr. C. Narayana Rao, Ceded Districts College, Anantapur.

Published by: The Superintendent at Government Press, Bangalore.

Published in: Proceedings and Transactions of the Eighth All India Oriental Conference, December, 1935.

---

Referring to the temple of Vitthala, the Archaeological Department has given currency to the notion that the temple was not completed and that the idol of Vitthala was not installed in it.

The annual report of the Archaeological Department for 1922-23 (page 67) has the following:

“It (the temple of Vitthala) was begun by Krishnadevaraya in 1513 and the work was carried on by his queens and successors Achyuta and Sadasiva. However the temple was apparently never finished or consecreated. In all probability the owrk was stopped by the destruction of the city in 1565.“

“But the God having come to look at it (the temple) refused to move, saying that it was far too grand for him and that he preferred his own humbler home.“

The above statement is misleading.

The main temple of Vitthala must have been completed some time before 1513 because we know that in that yer Krishnadevaraya built the gopura to that temple (Ins. Cd. Dts. p. 408, No. 21 nd p. 413, No. 38; Ins. Mad. Pres. Bellary, No. 337).

In 1516 the same king completed the hundred0pillared mantapam. (Ins. Ced. Dts., p. 413, No. 39 and 40; Ins. Mad. Pres., By., 344, 345).

Krishnadevaraya came to the throne in 1509 AD and four years is a short period in which to plan and execute the erection of an edifice which in its hugeness and artistic excellence stands even to-day in its decaying state investing us with a sense of unique grandeur.

So, the actual operations of construction must have been begun before Krishnadevaraya. Nor is there any reason to believe that it was completed in his reign except that there is no inscription in the temple referring to the fact so far discovered before his time.

There is not also much point in the statement that the temple was not completed. The various gopurams and mantapas of the temple did receive their finishing touches. The assumption that the temple was not consecrated is also baseless. The various inscriptions in and around the temple classified chronologically and given in the appendix to this paper point indubitably to the fact of the image of Vitthala having been duly installed in the temple. I cannot bring myself to believe that the temple shared the fate of others in the general destruction of the city in 1565.

A keen observation of the events following the defeat of the Vijayanagara army in the battle of Talikota will show that the occupation of the city of Vijayanagara by the Muslims after the battle is not probable. The Muslims might hae entered the city in the first flush of their victory and looted it to some extent. But the city could have been destroyed then. The tide of the Muslim onrush should have been stemmed successfully by Tirumaladevaraya. We know Tirumala took some two years to remove the seat of government to Penukonda. He did not retreat all at once. The destruction of the city might have been due to other causes like famine and pestilence. Vijayanagara must have proved unhealthy and uninhabitable as a result of the after effects of the war.

Nor can we with justice attribute the destruction of temples to the Muslims. They may be opposed to idolatry and there might have been in history stray cases of the demolition of idols by the Muslims, but they are the acts of the treasure-hunter and not the result of inconoclastic fervour. At least in the case of Vijayanagara we can confidently assert that no temple was touched by the Muslims after the battle of Talikota.

The fact of the more important temples among which is that of Virupaksha, the tutelary deity of the Vijayanagara kings, standing intact even to-day with worship going on in them gives the lie direct to the assumption fo wholesale devastation by the Muslims of the temples with their idols. Iconoclasm is not a special trait of the foreign Muslims alone; each sect among the Hindus indulged in the destruction of the temples and idols beloging to the other sects. We find even today wandering Sanyasins and others uprooting idols in the hope of finding some hidden treasure.

So, the destruction of Vijayanagara has come about in the process of time and not all of a sudden as is supposed by most historians. This process is slowly going on even today and at the present rate, people living fifty years hence may not be lucky enough to witness the place as we see it now. Hampi will be to them a mere name.

It is significant that there are not traces of Muslim influence in the ruins of Hampi or for the matter of that in the whole of the Bellary District. Such evidence as exists points to isolated instances of Muslim migration, and that not of a mass character, a hundred years after the battle of Talikota.

The earliest mention of any sort of Muslim rule in the Bellary district is found in an inscription of S. 1549, Prabhava, (1627 AD) according to which a certain Dalapati Nayudu is said to have fortified a battery and dug the well of “Sebhu Devar Bhavi” in the reign of Abdul Mahomed. Who this Muslim ruler was, we do not definitely know. The next inscription that speaks of Muslim rule is dated S. 1584, Subhakrit, Karttika, Su. di. 15. According to it, there was a lunar eclipse on that day and Maharajadhiraja Hande Chika Malukapa Nayaka (of Anantapur?) gave the village Andhrahalu to a certain Roadam Sivabasavappa. This village, says the inscription, was originally granted to the donor by one Alamshanva Saheb for Vajirike (i.e. for being Vazir). According to Mr. Swamikannu Pillai, there was no lunar eclipse in Karttika of S. 1585, Subhakrit and so this record may be a forgery. Nor is there any warrant for the identification of the ‘Alamshava Sahebu’ with either Abdulla Kutbshah as the Government Epigraphist surmises or with Alamghyr Padushah or Emperor Aurangazen as Mr. V. Rangachari assets. Even if the inscriptin is not a foregery, the title of the donor ‘Maharajadhiraja’ is significant as showing that even as late as 1662-63 the overlorship of the Muslim Nawab or Emperor was only nominal.

There are references in inscriptions, all dated 1664 AD to gifts by one Masud Khan to mosques at Sultanpur and Tarapuram in the Adoni Taluk and Bellary twon. These inscriptions prove nothing with regard to Muslim rule in the Bellary District even about the time when they were written. The policy of the Hindu rulers of Vijayanagara was not one of consistent hostility towards the Mohomedans. The Hindu emperors did allow isolated Muslim families to settle peacefully in their kingdom and carry on lawful occupations. They even took Muslims under their service as can be seen from the inscription at Kamalapur in the midst of the ruins of Hampi in which it is stated that in the reign of Virapratapa Devaraya Maharaya (II) as early as in S. 1362, Siddharthin (1450 AD), a certain Ahammada Khana (Ahmad Khan), a servant of the king, built a well in the village.

That the Muslims did not come into power in the Bellary district for a long time after the battle of Talikota can also be known from the fact that any Mohomedan wishing to do anything in the land has to take the permission of the local Hindu authorities. As an instance we may mention the stone inscriptions at Karekallu Virapura of S. 1615 (1693 AD), Srimukha, Sravana, Su. 15 according to which the Desayi’s and Nadu-kula-karni’s of Moka-sima permitted two Mohomedans, Mallikesayi (Mallik Shah) and Bira Mallikesayi (Bir Mallik Shah) to build small bastions (hude) on the hillock near Virapura. (229 of 1913).

There appers to have been the ascendancy of the Marathas and not of the Muslims in the Bellary District at lest for a hundred years after the battle of Talikota. The Hande family ruling from Anantapur seems to be a Maratha one, at least the rulers of that family took Maratha titles like ‘Yeswant’ and so on. The rulers at Gutti and Sandur were of Maratha extraction. The local officials mentioned in the inscriptions are called Desayis and Kulkarnis. From all this, it may be surmised that the Vijayanagara empire did not come under real Mohomedan influence till more than a century after the disaster of Talikota. Even afterwards when Hyder Ali came in possession of it, he could not afford to be hostile to the Hingu religion. On the other hand, he is credited with the building of a shrine for God Hanuman on the Hanumanta hill at Kurugodu in the Bellary Taluk.

From what have been said above, it may be established that the temples at Vijayanagara for the idols therein including that of Vitthala, were not destroyed by the Muslims soon after the battle of Talikota as all historians have written till the present day.

I may be permitted to repeat that the temple of Vitthala was completed and the idol of the God was installed in it. The God was worshipped in the temple till 1564AD. according to inscriptions evidence.

The worship must have continued for some time longer. How and when the idol ceased to be worshipped, we do not however, know. All the stories about the migrations of the idol must be the creations of a later age. The earliest mention about the migration dates some 175 years after the battle of Talikota i.e. towards the latter part of the eighteenth century.

There are many stories told about the migration of the idol of Vitthala. One is that a king of Vijayanagara had an image of Vitthala made in the Maratha country and the God promised the king to follow him on condition that he should walk in front and never turn his face back to observe whether he was following the king or not. When they reached Pandharapur the king was curious to know if theGod was following him and turned his face back, so that Vitthala stopped short and refused to move. It was raining at the time and the God was standing in the mud in a field where a brickmaker was making his bricks. Seeing the God’s plight, he threw a brick for the God to stand upon. The God stood upon it and there he remains at Pandharapur to this day with his right hand on the right hip pitying the anxiety of men to get at short-cuts to salvation. That was how it came about that the idol of Vitthala was not installed in the Vitthala temple at Vijayanagara.

Another story is that a Vijayanagara king, once paid a visit to Pandharpur and looking at the beauty of the idol of Vitthala and building a temple worthy of occupation by the handsome God, prayed to him to come and occupy it. The God travelled at his request but when he saw the abode prepared for him, he felt it was far too grand and majestic for him to occupy and so turned and went back to his original dwelling-place. This story also is invented to show that the idol was not installed in the Vitthala temple.

Other stories are more definite in their historic detail though they do not conform to historic truth. One story mentions (Aliya?) Ramaraya as the king who took the idol to Vijayanagara. When he committed this act of theft, the devotees of Pandharpur, felt sorely for the loss of their idol and being unable to take it back by force from such a powerful king as Ramaraya, deputed a great bhakta, Bhanudasa, to pray to the God and request Him to come back to Pandharpur. Bhanudasa came to Vijayanagara and submitted his prayer to the God. The God went back to Pandharpur preferring to live in His own humble home surrounded by real devotees than in the midst of pomp and splendour with no fervent devotion.
Bhanudasa was not a contemporary of Ramaraya and so this story lacks in credence. But one may say that the king’s name may not be Ramaraya but another. Wh then, could that king be? Some say that since Krishnadevaraya finished the temple of Vitthala, he may be credited with the removal of the idol. But the idol was installed before Krishnaraya came to the throne, fot, if it was he that installed the idol, that event must have been inscriptionally recorded. But no such inscription is forth-coming.

The stories puporting that the image of Vitthala was not placed in the temple of Vitthala at Vijayanagara emerge from the fact that there has been no trace of the idol. Two years ago while in the Vitthala temple with my friend Sriman Srinivasa Tolappalacharyula varu; the present family guru of the Anegondi Rajas, we chanced upon a beautiful idol under the debris. We took it out and n examining it, we came to the conclusion that it must have been the lost image of Vitthala.

It had no head, but we were under no doubt about its identification. It was made of black granite and polished to perfection. It had all the marks of an image necessary for the mula-vigraha. There was also no mistake about our identification of the image being that of Vitthala. The characteristic of the Pandharpur image is described pithily in Marathi thus –

“ithi para thayi
kati para hat“

“He stands on the brick with his hand on the hip.”

Here was an image with its right hand on its right hip. We went into the garbhagriha and found traces of the existence of a brick at the place of installation. That decided the matter. The idol had the image of his wife Rukku Bai (Rukmini) carved near its left hip. This bore further proof for the correctness of our identification. We took a photograph of the image but it did not come off well.

I announced the discovery at the Eighth Session of the All India Oriental Conference and from the many letters I have received asking for information about the find, I am glad to note that it has evoked much curiosity. But I am extremely sorry that I could not publish this paper till now because I could not find time to go to Hampi to take a clearer photograph of the image for publication. Delay on my part has resulted in the further mutilation of the idol. When I saw it two years back, the right hand placed on the right hip and the image of Rukku Bai on the left hip were intact, but now to the extreme sorrow of all lovers of discovery, both these are broken. The marks of breaking are visible in the photograph. I made a vigorous search for these missing parts of the image but could not recover them.

It may, however, interest scholars if I now make the announcement of my discovery of the statute of Krishnadevaraya in the Vitthala temple at the same time as when we chanced on the idol of Vitthala. But vandalism has played its part on this statue also. At the time I first found it, it was intact except of the head which was severed. This head, I hear, was subsequently placed in a mandapa which came down recently, so that it now lies buried under a mass of debris. The other portion of the statue too is now broken into three pieces and flung in different directions. I placed them together for the photograph. Two breakages may be observed in it, one at the feet and the other at the waist. The figure on the left of the image of Vitthala in the photograph represents Krishnadevaraya and accords well in its features with that of the bronze statue of the king at Tirupati.

One other lucky discovery made by me during my recent visit to the Vitthala temple at Hampi is the statue of a queen which, I believe, represents Tirumalamba, the wife of Krishnadevaraya. This also is headless. I placed the image of Vitthala in the middle with the statues of the King and the Queen on either side of it for the purpose of the photograph which is published here.

The discovery of the statues of Krishnadevaraya and his queen Tirumalamba is important in that it shows the connection of this great royal couple with the temple of Vitthala. It may point to the fact that the temple of Vitthala with its outer artistic buildings was completed by Krishnadevaraya though begun in a previous reign. The image of Vitthala itself must have been installed some years previous to the accession of Krishnadevaraya to the throne.

As for the story of the idol of Vitthala being brought from Pandharpur to Vijayanagara, I think it is impossible. The idol is far too artistic for Maharashtra and entirely in consonance with Vijayanagara sculptures. But the story of the migration of the idol itself must have some foundation. I believe that it was not the idol but the worship of Vitthala that travelled from Pandharpur to Vijayanagara. Panduranga Vitthala is essentially a deity peculiar to Maharashtra and his worship travelled from there into the Kannada country especially through the ecstatic devotional songs of Purandaradasa. The name Vitthala, itself is a Marathi corruption of the word Vishnu the final suffix ‘ala’ standing perhaps for ‘arya’ or simply as an honorific plural suffix, while ‘Vittha’ is a derivative of ‘Vishnu’ just in the same way as ‘Kishta’ and ‘Kitta’ are derivatives from the word ‘Krishna.’ It may be noted that Vitthala worship has not spread in the Telugu country.

The idol of Vitthala that is now being worshipped at Pandharpur is not an artistic production. Was there an original artistic image of Vitthala in the temple at Pandharpur at any time? I believe there was none and if there were, it has to be traced somewhere else than at Hampi. The image now discovered and identified could not have been the one brought from Pandharpur.

That Vitthala worship existed in the Kannada country long before Krishnadevaraya may be known from the following inscriptions:

(1) Vithalamba, the Kadamba princess, wife of Harihara-II is mentioned in an inscription at Srisailam, Nandikotkur taluk, Kurnool District, of S. 1315 or 1393 AD. The name of the person suggests that Vitthala was a favourite deity at that time.

(2) The same Vithalamba, wife of Harihara-II consecrated an image of Vithalesvara near the flight of steps of the temple at Srisaila in S. 1318 (AD 1396) IMPKI.483.

(3) Kriyashakti was the guru of Harihara-II, Muddadandesa, viThannavodeyar and Vijayabhupati. Mysore Archaeological Report, 1932, p. 105)

(4) In S. 1340, Vithannavodeyar, Governor of Araga, from AD 1403 to 1417, grandson of Rayappa Odeyar, under orders of Maharajadhiraja Rajaparamesvara Virapratapa Devarayamaharaya, granted a silasasana making a distribution of the tenants (okkalu vivarada silasasana) to the mahajanas of the agrahara of Pratapa Hariharapura and to Mallannaiya, son of Peddanna Nagannaiya. (Mysore Archaeological Report, 1932, pp. 211, 212). The date as calcualted is given as 12th February, 1518.

(5) A stone inscription at the village Mukkudihalli in Harave HObli (No. 27, Mysore Archaeological Report, 1932, pp. 123-124). Reign of Vira Ballala in S. 1237, Rakshasa, Magha, ba. 1, Vaddavara (10h January, 1416.) The grantee was one Vithanna.

(6) A stone inscription behind the Brahmesvara temple in the village Punaje in the Kalurkatte hobli, Mysore District. Reign of Harihara II, S. 1318, Dhatu, Sravana, su. 10. i.e. Sunday, 16th July 1396 AD. Grant of lands in the village Titisaragada Subur in the Badaganad District to Vithapa, son of Chika Vithapa by certain Gauda prabhus. (Mysore Archaeological Report, 1931, p. 175.)

The Archaeological Survey Report of Mysore for 1930 has the following short note on the temple of Vithala at Mulbagal:-

“The Vithala temple also belongs to the Vijayanagara period. The Mahadvara, about 40 feet high, the gopura and prakara wall, are all in ruins, while the navaranga is leaking. The main building is however, intact. The main God, about 5 ft. high, has two hands abhaya and sankha, and Sri and Bhu on the sides.

The Vithala image of Hampi is not of this pattern. Its hands answer to that of the image of Pandharpur. Instead of two female figures one on either side of the God, there is only one on the left side in the image of Hampi.

There are references to other images of Vithala, though not consecrated ones, in the Mysore Archaeological Reports. In the Aghoresvara temple at Ikkeri, Mysore, the third in the row of figures in the lower row of the west door way northwards there is a figure of Vitthala. (Mysore Archaeological Report, 1930, p. 42.) In the Panchalingesvara temple at Govindanahalli, Mysore State, the first figure on the south wall of the fourt cell, is Vitthala with hands akimbo, carrying a small bag in each hand.

NOTE:

Mr. G. H. Khare, of the Bharat Itihasa Samshodhak Mandali, Poona, contributed an article to the Vijayanagara Sexcentenary volume in which he refers to my paper read at the All India Oriental Conference held at Mysore.

In this article, he refers to a story in the Maharashtra country that the image of Vitthala was taken by (Aliya) Ramaraya from Pandharpur to Vijayanagara and that Bhanudasa, a devotee of Vitthala took the image back to Pandharpur. This story, says Mr. Khare, is mentioned by four poets about whose dates he is not sure, but who, according to himself lived not less than 175 years than Bhanudasa, the alleged contemporary of Ramaraja.

On a historical examination of this point, Mr. Khare rightly dismisses the connection of either Ramaraja or Bhanudasa with the migrations of the image of Vitthala.

He, however, mentions two facts

(1) Krishnaraya bringing the image of Balakrishna from Udayagiri and installing it in a temple at Vijayanagara and

(2) a battle in 1520-21 between Krishnaraya and Ismail Adilshah, the Sultan of Bijapur, before and after which battle there was comparative peace between the two powers.

These two facts are irrelevant to the topic on hand and prove nothing. But perhaps to establish that the Vitthala image was brought from Pandharpur to Vijayanagara, Mr. Khare mentions a verse from the Tirtha Prabandha of Vadirajatirtha, the Madhva saint, which refers to the migration of Vitthala. But some amendments had to be made to the verse for it to yield any sense and even the amended verse shows us that the image at Vijayanagara is different from the one at Pandharpur. But Mr. Khare opines that the original image was broken after the battle of Talikota and Vadirajatirtha referse to another image that may have been newsly installed.

While Mr. Khare feels sure that the image was brought from Pandharpur to Vijayanagara but never taken back to Pandharpur, one fails to understand why he should cling to a story which he has himself taken so much pains to disprove.

*****