Note 31 — B (continued 2)

Nothing very definite is known of the origin of the Bants, but Tuluva seems, in the early centuries of the Christian era, to have had kings who apparently were sometimes independent and sometimes feudatories of overlords, such as the Pallavas, the early Kadambas, the early Chālukyans, the later Kadambas, the western Chālukyans, the Kalachurians, and the Hoysal Ballāls. This indicates a constant state of fighting, which would account for an important class of the population being known as Bantaru or warriors; and, as a matter of course, they succeeded in becoming the owners of all the land which did not fall to the share of the priestly class, the Brāhmans. Ancient inscriptions speak of kings of Tuluva, and the Bairasu Wodears of Kārakal, whose inscriptions have been found at Kalasa as early as the twelfth century, may have exercised power throughout Tuluva or the greater part of it. But, when the Vijayanagar dynasty became the overlords of Canara in 1336, there were then existing a number of minor chiefs who had probably been in power long before, and the numerous titles still remaining among the Bants and Jains, and the local dignities known as Pattam and Gadi, point to the existence from very early times of a number of more or less powerful local chieftains. The system peculiar to the west coast under which all property vests in females, and is managed by the seniors of the family, was also favourable to the continuance of large landed properties, and it is probable that it is only within comparatively recent times that sub-division of landed property became anything like as common as it is now. All the Bants, except the Parivāra and a few Jains follow this aliya santāna system of inheritance,31 a survival of a time when the military followers of conquering invaders or local chiefs married women of the local land-owning classes, and the most important male members of the family were usually absent in camp or at court, while the women remained at the family house on the estate, and managed the farms. The titles and the pattams or dignities have always been held by the male members, but, as they also go with the landed property, they necessarily devolve on the sister’s son of a deceased holder, whence has arisen the name aliya santāna, which means sister’s son lineage. A story is embodied in local traditions, attributing the origin of the system to the fiat of a king named Bhūtal Pāndya, until whose time makkala santāna, or inheritance from father to son, generally obtained. “It is said that the maternal uncle of this prince, called Dēva Pāndya, wanted to launch his newly constructed ships with valuable cargo in them, when Kundodara, king of demons demanded a human sacrifice. Dēva Pāndya asked his wife’s permission to offer one of his sons, but she refused, while his sister Satyavati offered her son Jaya Pāndya for the purpose. Kundodara, discovering in the child signs of future greatness, waived the sacrifice, and permitted the ships to sail. He then took the child, restored to him his father’s kingdom of Jayantika, and gave him the name of Bhūtal Pāndya. Subsequently, when some of the ships brought immense wealth, the demon again appeared, and demanded of Dēva Pāndya another human sacrifice. On the latter again consulting his wife, she refused to comply with the request, and publicly renounced her title and that of her children to the valuable property brought in the ships. Kundodara then demanded the Dēva Pāndya to disinherit his sons of the wealth which had been brought in the ships, as also of the kingdom, and to bestow all on his sister’s son, Jaya or Bhūtal Pāndya. This was accordingly done. And, as this prince inherited his kingdom from his maternal uncle and not from his father, he ruled that his own example should be followed by his subjects, and it was thus that the aliya santāna law was established about A.D. 77.”32