Talk:Musunuri Nayakas

Good work

this is a well written article, and yet I feel like the title is deceptive. this is a piece of indian history (a well written piece to be sure) and not the biography of any one person in the story. I would suggest renaming.66.82.9.56 03:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Mr Siddhu, This article was written after painstaking research. We can discuss in this forum about various evidences to show that Musunuri cousins belonged to Kamma social group. Please participate in the discussion if you have evidences contrary to what is written in the article.--Polumetla

Incredible

This story tries to marginalise a great empire (the Vijayanagar empire) and extols a measly Nayaka kingdom, which for most part served as a feudatory of the Vijayanagar empire. There were numerous Nayakas who served under the Vijayanagar empire like the Nayakas of Shimoga, Kanakagri, Chitrdurga all in Karnataka alone. This is just another Nayaka kingdom. Please restudy your history and dont create parallel histories. All the Nayakas whether of Kannada origin or Telugu origin need to be seen in the shadow of Vijayanagar Empire.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Reply

Mr Kannambadi was totally mistaken. The article throws light on a small but significant chapter of Andhra history which steered the South Indian history after 1350 AD. This was the first South Indian rebellion against the powerful Delhi sultanate which not only succeeded but inspired the subsequent Vijayanagar empire to protect Hindu dharma. The glory and grandeur of Vijayanagar was yet to come. The nayak chiefs of Vijayanagar were predominantly the progeny of Kakatiya nayaks. I suggest the critic to read a beautiful treatise on Musunuri nayaks written by M. Somasekhara Sarma (cited in the article). It is interesting to read How Bukka and Kapaya Nayaka worked together to achieve the common goal. This formed the basis for subsequent migration of Nayaks to Vijayanagar after Kapaya was killed by jealous Rachakonda Velamas who colluded with Bahmanis.

Vandalism

59.93.48.55 should refrain from vandalism. Changes without giving reason will be reverted. 59.93.48.55 must login with User name and explain why he changed Kamma (caste) to Kapu (caste) with evidences. It should be noted that I gave proper evidence to Viswanatha Nayudu being Balija and suggested deletion of false info from the article on Kamma (caste). Please read the book: Durga Prasad, History of the Andhras Till 1565 A.D., P. G. Publishers, Guntur; page 168. Kumarrao 07:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear kumarRao,

Durga Rao himslef claims its not an Authentic publication and his articles have not been Accepted or published as journals by any other University And there are contradictory claims from SuvarnamPratapa Reddy saying Musnuri Kapaya nayaka was a Kapu/reddy and from Colin Mckenzie of all historians saying he was a Kapu.

You do not have supporting claims and Musunuri is not their Surname as is being projected the same set of people who went on claiming Kakatiyas as Kamma Madura Nayaks are Kamma are also spoiling this article just for the sake of glorifying the Community... Give us sound proof and then it would be accepted...

Musnuri nayaka married of niece and daughters to Korukonda nayaks they were Kapu and not Kamma... Another piece of information if you are interested in.

Evidences

192.216.42.56 must login as a Wiki user, reveal his identity and engage in meaningful discussion.

1. The book by Durga Prasad is accepted by all historians. It is cited in many articles on Wiki, including Vijayanagar empire, Andhra Pradesh history etc. All Universities in A.P., prescribe this book in History departments (E.G., Univ. of Hyderabad)

2. Musunuri Nayaks could not be Reddy because the very basis of selection of Musunuri Prolaneedu by Bendapudi Annaya Mantri and Kolanu Rudradeva was to avoid Reddy-Velama rivalry (This excludes Reddy and Velama claim to Prolaneedu. Suravaram was clearly wrong in his statement).

3. Musunuru village near Nuziveedu (Krishna Dt) is populated predominantly by Kamma farmers even today. There is a small dilapidated fort in the village. This region was part of Vengi Chalukya kingdom. After the rise of Kakatiyas on the ashes of Chalukyan empire, Musunuri warriors migrated to Warangal to serve Kakatiya kings.

4. Surname "Musunuri" exists only in Kamma and Brahmin communities of AP. (The only other claimant to Prolaneedu is Brahmin caste). Mr Kotta Bhavaiah Choudary in his "Kammavari Charitra" logically argued in this direction on the basis of Surname and Gothra.

5. The name of Prolaya Nayak's uncle (China Naanna) was Kamma Nayak.

6. Telugu historians generally agreed that Musunuri cousins were Kammas. Dr B.S.L. Hanumantha Rao in his "Andhrula Charitra" and Prof. Mallampalli Somasekhara Sarma, Former Head of the Department of History, Andhra Aniversity, also reiterated this view.

7. Anapota Nayaka, son of Recherla Singama Nayaka got the title "Kammadoralamodina Kaaladandama" after the demise of Kapaaneedu. (Nelaturi Venkataranayya's English translation of "Velugotivaari Vamsavali"). Obviously these Kammadoras were Kaapaneedu and his relatives.

8. "Velugotivaari Vamsaavali" also mentioned "Birudula Nirasinchu Kammadoralu", after the capture of Warangal by Padmanayakas. Kamma Nayaks declined the positions and power offered to them by victorious Velamas and migrated to Vijayanagar in view of good relations between Bukka Raya and Kapaaneedu. Obviously, the persons who were in control of Warangal at that point of time were Kamma Nayaks.

9. Many old-time Velama Zamindars always referred to Kapaaneedu as a Kamma rival. (I cannot offer tangible proof to this hearsay).

10. During the attack by Golkonda general 'Mir Jumla' on Gandikota Pemmasani China Thimma Nayudu invited his relatives of 66 Kamma clans to join him in the battle. He referred "Asahaayasoorulou Musunuri varu" in his letter. Obviously, Musunuri varu were Kammas.

11. MacKenzie's Krishna District manual was silent on Musunuris (Any evidence otherwise may be cited with proof).

12. Marital alliances were made for political purposes during medieval times.

Other info:

• Kakatiyas were not Kammas. I edited the article "Kamma (caste)" to that effect.

• Madhura nayaks were Balija merchants. I edited the article to that effect. I also cited historical references.Kumarrao 08:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

" Surname "Musunuri" exists only in Kamma and Brahmin communities of AP. "

Its factually wrong. My mother's(maiden family name) and my wife's (maiden family name) is Musunavaru and we are Balijas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.8.81 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems

Aside from the grammar, style, and tone (all of which need work) and the wikification (miscapitalisation, unwikified lead, etc.), the article is couched in very one-sided langauge; it makes very dogmatic statements about events with no sign that there might be alternative interpretations and views. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

150.198.150.245 has been repeatedly editing without giving any explanation. He/she must consult the rerefence: "History of Andhras" by Durga Prasad.

(http://igmlnet.uohyd.ernet.in:8000/gw_44_5/hi-res/hcu_images/G2.pdf). Kumarrao 09:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear MR.kumarRao,

I am sorry, that I havent posted any references for my editings. Initially i thought it was some miscreants, who's simply changing articles and havent responded. I apologise. I have read that prolaya belongs to telega caste in wikipedia and therefore tried to correct it. Im not sure who posted it,U could check in the Kapu caste/telaga section. Also Durga Rao himslef claims its not an authentic publication and there are contradictory claims from SuvarnamPratapa Reddy saying Musnuri Kapaya nayaka was a Kapu/reddy and from Colin Mckenzie saying he was a Kapu. need more input ---raju

Reply

1. Durga Prasad clearly mentioned on page 168 that Musunuris belonged to fourth caste (Sudra, Kamma).See his webbook above.

2. K. B. Choudary (Kammavari Charitra, 1939) provided convincing evidence.

3. Suravaram was wrong. He did not cite any evidence.

4. McKenzie never talked about Musunuris. If he did, provide a citation.

A list of evidences/reasoning is available on this talk page.Kumarrao 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Editing process is on. Citations are being provided in line.Kumarrao 11:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please make changes to Kapuscaste/Telaga section which points that musunuri nayaks belongs to telaga caste.----raju

Sufficient evidences for the ethnicity of Musunuri cousins exist.

This article modified by Kumarrao shows a bias towards the Kamma caste.I think this is not the way to show history..if u have refered to any history text books or wikipedia for instance the one who wrote for e.x Cholas,Pallavas,Madurai Nayaks etc never wrote saying that these are from so n so caste even if written never bragged the caste....You hav modified this article in order to praise or show bias towards the Kamma community...If u have mentioned only in the introduction as to who Musunuru nayaks are provided if u r pretty much sure about it it would been enough.... John Rambo 05:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo4u (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Point out the bias with evidences. We can discuss.Kumarrao (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuetrality of this article is disputed

The reason provided by Kumarrao are also not convincing...

I like to counter Kumarrao regarding this assumption that Musunuru Nayaks are of Kamma origin..

a) Saying that Books by Prasad is prescriped a History text in many universities doesn't make it a reliable source....Even Suravaram Pratap Reddy Book is a text to many universities. Even in Civils Services it is one of the prescribed texts...so ur argument doesn't hold much in that aspect...

b)Your 2nd argument that "Musunuri Nayaks could not be Reddy because the very basis of selection of Musunuri Prolaneedu by Bendapudi Annaya Mantri and Kolanu Rudradeva was to avoid Reddy-Velama rivalry" Why is only Kamma should be selected for this ?? Why not a Telaga or Balija Nayakas or a Mudiraja ?? to avoid this rivalry...These are also the important Nayakas during that time... So this argument too does not hold water... John Rambo 05:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mallampalli Somasekhara Sarma who unearthed the history of Musunuri cousins was also in agreement. Please see the proof before arguing.Kumarrao (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Mr Rambo,

1. Please follow wiki guidelines. You are not signing your contributions with four tildes. Mere mention of your Wiki username will not do.

2. You have to refute the supporting arguments (see above; # 1-10) one by one.

3. The most important argument in favour of 'Kamma' theory is based on Surname. 'Musunuri' surname exista only in Kamma and Brahmin communities. Please show any evidence that it exists in Reddy or Kapu communities of AP.

4. Another important evidence comes from Rayavachakamu in which Pemmasani chief (Kamma) invited his relatives including "Asahaayasoorulou Musunuri varu" to join them in battle with muslims. Obviously, Musunuri warriors were Kammas.

5. Suravaram's thesis was totally wrong and unsupported by any evidence. If you have, please produce one.Kumarrao 14:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is a glory hunting article,It has correct information but also indulges in blatant one-sided glorification

For example author has claimed that Musunuri Kaapaya Nayaka "gave" autonmy to the Reddys and Velamas. This is the biggest joke. To their credit, Musunuri Nayaks collaborated with other Nayaks and Reddys and were responsible for fostering unity and "organized" a revolt against the invading muslims, but the Musunuri nayaks never controlled the whole region or other clans. Wanton glory is in vain :)Foodie 377 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Authentic

Please read Mallampalli (The Forgotten Chapter of Andhra History) and Telugu Vignana Sarvasvamu published by Telugu University to know about Musunuri Nayaks who led the confederation. If anything was glorious it was Mallampalli who wrote it. Kumarrao (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Musunuri Nayaks were the main organizers of the revolt, I am not disputing that at all. And they were leaders in the sense that they pioneered the revolt - no denying that also. BUT they are not leaders in the sense that they had absolute control over the entire region or other Nayaks and clans like the Reddys and Velamas. Thats precisely what I am disputing that when this article claims that "musunuri kapaneedu gave autonomy to Reddys and Velmas". That is not possible because Kapaneedu was not the absolute ruler to grant autonomy or Kapaneedu was not the ruler of the entire region. Reddys controlled their own territories and Velmas also had their own territories. He fostered unity among warring clans. Not sure that equates to autonomy Foodie 377 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Read any book in Google books after "Musunuri nayaks". It becomes obvious who preceded whom and who were in control. If one understands the meaning of titles “Andhradesaadheeswara” and “Andhrasuratraana” given to Kapaneedu, it again becomes obvious the coverage of Andhra kingdom under Kapaneedu, although short lived. I leave it to the wisdom of Users/Editors of Wiki the final word. Let truth prevail.Kumarrao (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not like ambiguity. Lets break it down bit by bit. Musunuri Nayaks controlled Warangal for a short time. The Padmanayaka Velmas controlled Rachakonda. The Reddis controlled coastal regions and ruled from Kondavidu. They were separate entities. Its a big joke if you are claiming that Musunuris were the rulers of all these three regions which is 100% false. Thats precisely what I am challenging when the article claims that Musunuri Kaapanedu "gave" autonomy to Reddis and Velmas. Thats a false statement because Musunuris never controlled the regions of the Velmas and Reddis. Now second point, as regards to the titles "Andhrasuraatrana" etc, it does not substantiate anything. Those were just "figurative" poetic songs of praise hailing a great fighter in the hour of victory. They do not equate that he was monarch of whole Andhra. For example, after India won the cricket world cup, people said Sachin is the God of India and Dhoni is the King of India. Does that really make them Kings and Gods of India? Foodie 377 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

NO PROPER PROOF:- here their is no proper proof munusurinayakulu kamma valuani so i delete the kamma from it. if you show the strong proof and then you add it after that i can agree it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.118.9 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Kamma tag was removed...

Who remove the kamma tag? It must be include.. All historians accepted that musunuri nayaks were belonged to kamma caste.. Please help. 8.37.225.141 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Kamma is completely wrong. Kamma history is that they were migrants from the North like Velamas who came South to run away from Muslim onslaught in the North to seek better opportunities in the South. They were not rulers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.231.29 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Puffery

As others have said before me over the years, this article is a puffed-up mess. For starters, please note the content at Kakatiya dynasty#Aftermath - there are a lot of myths surrounding these people and they have been elevated to truths. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nayaka vs Nayak

@Sitush:, Nayaka is the correct transliteration of their names, as you can see in Eaton and Talbot. The dropping of the vowel endings didn't happen until the Raj era. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not fussed, as long as we're consistent (and across articles, not just this one). Whatever COMMONNAME is, follow it. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I just followed the spelling in this article's title. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Page name needs to be changed

The page title reeks of casteim. Musunuri Nayaks is the standard term used by historians. Even if they were Kammas, for which there is no credible information, including the caste in the title is very inappropriate. For people, who changed the title, provide citations from valid sources or revert the title to the old name. Kekamohan (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Andhra historians

@Tostmonl: I think this is a tall claim. Who are the "prominent" Andhra historians? Have any of them published in national or international venues? I see very few names among the historians that I have read, who are recognizably from Andhra. Cynthia Talbot and Rchard Eaton, who pay strong attention to South Indian history have contradicted numerous claims of the "Andhra historians". Finally, I find this statement in a national publication:

There is nothing in the Guraja grant on other records to show that the authority of Kāpaya nāyaka extended into the Guntur district wherein the kingdom of Vema lay.

Since Kammanadu was in Guntur district and to the south of it, this pretty much rules out any connection between the Musunuri chiefs and the "kammas". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References

M. Rama Rao wrote his book in 1940's. In 1970's & 1980's 2 inscriptions of Kapaya nayaka are discovered in Guntur district. Ancestors of Kapaya nayaka also has inscriptions in guntur district. Musunuri nayakas are warrior kamma kings from Kammanadu. Vema reddy kingdom is a feudatory kingdom under kapaya nayaka. Kapaya is sovereign king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testeronix1 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Reddy dynasty ruled kammanadu (Addanki & kondaveedu) so are they Kammas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testeronix1 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Need sources for the assertion that Musunuri Nayaks were Kammas

The article says "Musunuri Nayakas belonged to the Kamma caste group" and provides the following two references.

1. History of Andhras, B. S. L. Hanumantha Rao 2. Talbot 2001, p. 86

The first one is inaccessible. I didn't find from the second source where it says Musunuri Nayaks were Kammas. Can someone come up with additional sources for this please?? Kautilya3 Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I did another revert to reinstate an attribution which somebody removed.

The local historians tend to assume that castes like Kamma were ancient, whereas Christine Talbot, after looking at loads of inscriptions, concluded that they only date from something like the 18th century. And, you are right that she never says anything about Musunuri Nayaks belonging to any caste. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus?

Vivek987270, you claimed here that there was a "consensus" reached about the caste of Musunuris. Can you point me to where this is? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3. I believe Kummarrao detailed why they were Kammas in the "Evidence" section. Can Sitush, weigh in? Also would you mind editing out the Reddy Dynasty from the Reddies since Talbot has stated the no caste groups were formalized until before the 18th century? This cannot selectively apply to the Kammas. Is there any harm in mentioning the viewpoints of regional historians. I feel like only relying on Westerners leads to a Euro-centric view of history when regional historians research isn't included. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek987270 (talk • contribs)

Kumarrao didn't provide a single citation to any source. I don't see him having generated any consensus. You are welcome to provide sources. The sources that were in the article (which I deleted) are not good enough. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

For issues with the Reddy page, please post on its talk page, not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas

Musunuri Nayakas are 14th century warrior kings of Shudra varna. In 14th century Kamma caste of Shudra varna is present as quoted by prominent 14th century brahmin poet Srinatha in his book "Bheemeswara Purana".

Prominent Historians views:

• Durga prasad told Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas.
• Mallampalli Somasekhara Sharma told Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas.
• Etukuri Balaram murthy told Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas.
• Bsl Hanumantha Rao told Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas.

These historians have extensively researched on caste of Musunuri nayakas and confirmed they are Kammas.

Inscriptional evidences:

• An inscription of Musunuri Gundaya in bapatla in guntur district (South indian inscriptions volume 4:page.146) mentions he belong to Chaturtha varna of Kammanadu.

Literary evidence

• Vedasara Ratnavali a book written by uppuluri ganapathi shastry in 1974 mentions musunuri nayakas as Kammas. Shastry is the descendant of Musunuri prolaya nayakas gifted agrahara brahmin family. Shastry clearly said his ancestors told that musunuri nayakas are Kammas. Shastry also told that he also have supporting ancient talapatras with their family to say musunuri nayakas are Kammas. Vedasara Ratnavali book was published in 1974 by annavaram devasthanam which was under the control of Velama caste zamindars.

All these evidences clearly point out that musunuri nayakas are Kammas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrun (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ventrun, you have been here long enough to know that you need to provide WP:Full citations. This is apparently a subject you care about. So, please spend the effort and provide enough information for us to make a judgement. If the books are online, please provide links. If not, please provide quotations. Until a consensus is reached, please retain the WP:STATUS QUO text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• The "insciptional evidence" and "literary evidence" that you mention are WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia cannot use PRIMARY sources. Please provide WP:SECONDARY sources, typically books/articles authored by academics and published by scholarly presses/journals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ventrun and Kautilya3 . I suggest that the status quo of mentioning that Andhra Historians think they are Kammas and Talbot, who is indeed an international scholar that I have become more familiar with, believes the castes haven't become formalized much latter. This way both historians have their POV heard, which is what Wikipedia aims for in topics that raise debate. This is what I was aiming for with my initial edit. I don't think it's appropriate to discount the Bheemeshwara Puranam nor the Andhra Historians. In the same breath, the view of Talbot should be notes and heard, unlike the previous version of the page. There is also a need to have regional historians because of a potential issue with Etic Research. It's a documented type of research in Psychology that results in research taking local applications and applying it more broadly. I am not saying that Talbot has engaged in that, but to balance out any potential likelihood that she may have, regional historians should have a say.--Vivek987270 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I also think the article, as it is right now, is one of good faith by Ventrun and Kautilya3. Let's leave it at that. --Vivek987270 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not going to work. What I have reinstated is a one-year old text. It has been ransacked bit by bit over the period by caste propagandists. I have since discovered that other pages have also been ransacked in the same way, e.g., Khammam Fort. So, the issues need to be settled now. This cannot go on for ever.

Please provide the full citations and/or quotations as I requested above. Without them, the content will be deleted. This is according to the Wikipedia verifiability policy, which is its most fundamental pillar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Malik Maqbul is another page where the caste propaganda seems to happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I Belong to the Musunuru Kappayya Family and I can confirm that we are Kammas, we were given the title Varma, so the names are like Ravi Varma, Raghu Varma, Madhu Varma..etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Varma.Smitha. (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Mallampalli Somasekhara Sarma

There have been all kinds of claims regarding what Somasekhara Sarma wrote in his book, based on snippet views and wild concoctions. Here is what he actually wrote:

Prolaya Nayaka or Prolanedu of the Musunuri family was a young and daring chieftain born in the caturthakula or the fourth caste. He was the grandson of Pota and the son of Poca Nayaka. He must have been a junior contemporary of the last Kakatiya monarch, Prataparudradeva. Judging by his family name, Prola and his forefathers appear to have been originally the natives of Musunuru. As there are two villages of this name, one in the Nuzvid taluk of the Kistna district, and the other in the Kavali taluk of the Nellore district it is not possible to ascertain definitely their original habitat though in all probability they might have come from the latter. Some families having this house name are found even to-day both in the Kistna and Guntur districts among the people of the Kamma community, one of the many communities into which the caturthakula is divided.

References

In the first place, Sarma does not fit into what we regard as "modern historical scholarship". (See WP:HISTRS.) Modern scholarship in history starts around 1950, and the writings of the British Raj era were certainly not that. Secondly, I would say that Sarma is also a bit too enamoured with caste issues. Modern scholars are not. They certainly won't start classifying people based on surnames. But in the British Raj era, that was in vogue.

Given all that, we notice Sarma clearly saying that there are two Musunuru's. We don't know which Musunuru these Nayakas could have come from. I also want to point out that, even if they came from the Musunuru of Krishna district, that is still outside the traditional Kammanadu. So there is no a priori reason to presume that everybody that came from this Musunuru was a "Kamma".

Whether any "Kamma" identity existed at that time is also doubtful. No doubt the people that migrated to Karnataka (and the Chalukya seat of power) were identified as a "Kamma-X" based on their place of origin. This is not particularly different from a South Indian in Delhi today being identified as a "Madrasi". That does not mean that "Kamma" was a caste in much the same way as "Madrasi" is not a caste.

Coming back to the topic, Somasekhara Sarma is not one of the "Andhra historians" that has claimed that Musunuri Nayakas were Kammas. So, I am removing the citation from the main page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Kaluvacheru grant

A lot of the information that historians are basing their conclusions on comes from the Kaluvacheru grant of Anithalli. This grant says that Kapaya Nayaka had 75 subordinates (which is a formulaic figure as per Cynthia Talbot). It also says that Prolaya Vema Reddi was one of these subordinates who became independent after the death of Kapaya Nayaka.

Both Somasekhara Sarma and Rama Rao recognize the problems with this narrative.

• Vema Reddi was an independent ruler in 1325 in Addanki, at the southern end of the original Guntur district (now in Ongole district).
• We don't have evidence of Musunuri Prolaya Nayaka's rule before 1330 (Pithapuram Vilasa grant), but it could have also been sometime around 1325 because he really started from Rekapalle.
• Kapaya Nayaka must have conquered Warangal soon after 1334. (See the Malik Maqbul page.)
• Between 1325 and 1345, Vema Reddi was expanding his kingdom, coming all the way to the Godavari river. He probably started expanding it soon after he established his rule, driving out the Muslim garrisons in the area, but he appears to have continued doing so even after Kapaya Nayaka took over Warangal. So, Vema Reddi was hardly a "subordinate chief" of Musunuris, he was a competitor.
• After the death of Kapaya Nayaka, all of East Godavari fell into the Reddi kingdom, so much so that a separate branch of the dynasty got established in Rajahmundry.

The Kaluvacheru was written in 1423, almost a century after the events. The fact that it misrepresents the timeline (moving Vema Reddi's independence to 1368 instead of 1325) badly damages its credibility. Either they got the whole hisory wrong, or they were wilfully misrepresenting it in order to make it appear as if the Reddis and Musunuris were allies. Kaluvacheru is apparently near Annavaram, at the eastern edge of East Godavari. If the people there had warm feelings for Musunuris, claiming that Reddis were their allies would be a political device. Or, perhaps, it merely meant that East Godavari began to be ruled by the Reddi kings after the death of Kapaya Nayaka. (Vema Reddi was dead by then, but the Kaluvacheru grant exhibits pretends otherwise.)

The Kaluvacheru grant has not yet been analysed using the standards of modern historical scholarship, which would take into account all these factors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Origins

The Origins section of the article has this line, "Andhra historians often state that Musunuri Nayaks belonged to the Kamma caste group". Some doubts regarding the veracity of the claims. 1. Who are these Andhra historians? The citation is to a single book by one Durga Prasad. Does the work have academic rigour or is it a work by an amateur historian? 2. The usage of the word "often" seems to imply that a large number of Andhra historians mention them as Kammas. But having just a single citation does not justify the word "often". If there are more, they should be properly cited. 3. If we are including the opinions of local historians for providing diverse and non-European POV, then it should include other Andhra historians with diverse views. As has been pointed out in the earlier posts by others, some Andhra historians ascribe Musunuri Nayaks to the Reddy or Kapu communities. Shouldn't those claims be mentioned in the article as well?Reo kwon (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Reo kwon Looking through past variations of the page, there were additional citations from various other historians besides Prasad that were included that attest to the claim that I have now reincluded. From my end, I know at least three of these sources are from history professors or scholars that are Telugus (Raghunadha Rao, BSL Hanumantha Rao, and Pramila Kasturi). With your last point, please feel free to include these any other modern (post-1950s) Andhra historians with appropriate attribution, page numbers, quote, and/or links to the location of the book. The overwhelming thought from this particular group of historians about the Musunuris is that they are Kammas. I am not aware of any credible historian that fits this group profile that argues otherwise. By LovSLif (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Chattopadhyaya

Kautilya3 I'm trying to discover what happened to the Chattopadhyaya reference, which is in the bibliography but not the list of citations. It was present at 16 June 2019 after some socking but seems to disappear with your edits on 17 June 2019 and I'm not sure why. Either the source needs to be removed from the bibliography or it needs to be used. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Some kind of oversight. I have in my files a draft where the Vilasa Grant has a separate section, but it is not complete yet.

I added some wording to the last section which might clarify the troublesome relationship between the Bahamanis and the Musunuris. Kapaya Nayaka seems to have initially regarded the Bahamanis as fellow rebels, who should be helped in order to thwart the Delhi Sultanate. But the Bahamanis had bigger ideas. They regarded themselves as the new "sultanate" of South India and the Musunuris as their underlings. Musunuris didn't accept this subordination, prompting the Bahamanis to make multiple military campaigns. The "gifting of the turquoise throne" signifies their eventual acceptance of the hierarchy.

It would appear that the Musunuris, as well as other the Andhra dynasties, failed to master the new military technologies of the Delhi Sultanate. Only the Bahamanis and Vijayanagara were able to do so. Control of the west coast was necessary as that is where the horses could be imported. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I find the entire era in this region somewhat mystifying. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Delhi Sultanate was perceived as being made up of "foreigners" (turushkas and mlecchas). So the locals rose above their factional squabbles and united. But the same perception didn't work against the Bahamanis. Factionalism took over again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)