Pages

சனி, 18 செப்டம்பர், 2010

கொங்கு நாட்டை ஆண்டவர்கள் முதலியார்களே,இதோ ஆதாரம்..

Gatti Mudalis
The Gatti Mudalis were in charge of the most dangerously exposed province of the Nayak Kingdom with Kaveripuram on the right bank of the Cauvery as their strategic capital commencing one of the principal passes to the Mysore Plateau. The centre of their power seems, however, to have been Taramangalam where they have built a grant edifice of a temple. It is said their domination extended as far as Thalaivasal to the east, Dharapuram in Erode district in the west and Karur district in the south. The forts of greatest strategic importance held by the Gatti Mudalis were Omalur and Attur. By about 1635 A.D., the Muslim Sultans of Bijapur and Golkonda made in roads into the south when the power of Tirumalai Nayak had wanted palacode area came under Bijapur. Meanwhile Kantirava narasa Raja of Serangapatnam took several places in Coimbatore from Gatti Mudalis in 1641 A.D.
Contents
1 Genealogy of Gatti Mudaliars
2 Origin of Gatti Mudaliars
2.1 Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala
2.3 Sengunthar
3 Why Mudali title?
4 References
//

Genealogy of Gatti Mudaliars
From the names of the Gatti Mudaliars, it is clear that they are not Tamil names except for the last one. There were only 3 from that dynasty.
Gutti Mudhali, Haman (16thC)
Gatti Mudhali, Vanna Immudi Hama Nayana (16thC)
Gatti Mudhali, Vanangamudi (17thC)

Origin of Gatti Mudaliars

Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala
It is highly likely that Gatti Mudaliars are Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala and probably related to Arya Natha Mudaliar, Dalavoy of the Madurai Nayaks.
They just used the most popular title of that time i.e. Mudali.

Sengunthar
This is possible since many inscriptions indicate that the Gatti Mudaliars are sengunthars.

Why Mudali and not Gounda title?
The word Mudali is a tamil word, where Gounda is a Kannada word. The chiefs of Tamils were called Mudali. The chiefs of Kannadas were called Gounda. This can be seen by the total absence of the word Gounda in Tamil inscriptions. However there are thousands of Gounda inscriptions in Karnataka dating back over 1000 years.
As Kongu nadu got transferred from Tamil power to Karnataka power, the title also changed accordingly. By 1700, gounda title had firmly overtaken all tamil titles such as mudali and pillai in Kongu nadu.
However there were only Mudali and Pillai titles prevalent in Tamilnadu for use by Tamils and Nayak and Reddi as the titles for Telugus.

References
Kongumandalasatakangal (1923), Muthusamykonar T.A, Tiruchengode.
Painthamizh Velir Katti Muthalikal (2007) Pulavar Raju S., Kongu Aivu Mayyam, Erode.
http://www.salem.tn.nic.in/ahistory.htm http://attur.org/town/mudhali.html http://www.namakkal.tn.nic.in/nkl.htm http://www.salemexpress.com/places.htm

5 கருத்துகள்:

  1. பவானி - தாரமங்கலம் கட்டி முதலிகள் செங்குந்தர் அல்ல. பூவாணி நாட்டையும், வாகரை நாட்டையும் ஆண்ட கொங்கு வெள்ளாளரில் ஒரு பிரிவு. proof http://kongukulagurus.blogspot.in/2009/09/17.html

    பதிலளிநீக்கு
  2. இந்த கருத்து வலைப்பதிவு நிர்வாகியால் நீக்கப்பட்டது.

    பதிலளிநீக்கு
  3. Kongunadu was ruled by the Gatti mudaliars till 1621.Theye were the chieftains who were awarded the kongu Kingdom to rule by the Madurai Nayakas. It is seemed that they were the Senguntha mudaliars.The proof is that the inscriptions in Tharamangalam temple and also archaeological evidences prove it.

    பதிலளிநீக்கு
  4. Nanan, Gatti clans are velirs, Sengunthars are not velirs, Saiva vellala belong to the 4th varana as recorded by Saint sekizhar so their claim of Gatti mudali also become void since they dont belong to the Arasa varna, tharamangalam inscription records Gatti mudali as vellalar not as sengunthars, thulu research centre had recorded Gatti clans as thulvars one of the sub division of Agamudayars more over it is only Agmudayar caste that has inscription evidence right from 10th century to substantiate the mudali title was used by them for long or the they are the first, it is only after the arrival of British sengunthars and Saiva vellala started using mudali titles no one can deny this, history is based on facts not on once one whims and fancies,

    பதிலளிநீக்கு