How the Kakatiyas Built Telangana: The Tank–Temple–Town Model

Published by Orugallu Andhalu

 

Introduction

Unlike the earlier phase under the Western Chalukyas, the large-scale and systematic founding of new agrarian settlements in the water-resource-rich zones of Telangana emerged prominently during the sovereign rule of the Kakatiyas.

Though the Kakatiyas had long served as feudatories before asserting independence in the 12th century, their transition to sovereignty marked a decisive shift in regional development. Having governed the land for generations, they possessed intimate knowledge of its topography, rainfall patterns, forest tracts, and seasonal water flows. Once independent, they undertook deliberate and organized efforts to expand agrarian society across Telangana.

The Kakatiya rulers, along with their feudatories, commanders, merchants, and revenue officials, actively participated in founding new villages by:

• Clearing forest tracts
• Excavating irrigation tanks
• Constructing temples
• Allocating cultivable lands
• Organizing Brahmana settlements
• Structuring revenue administration

These elements were not isolated undertakings. Tanks, temples, and towns were designed to function as interdependent institutions. The irrigation tank sustained agriculture. The temple legitimized settlement and organized ritual life. The village structured production and revenue.

Through this integrated Temple–Tank–Town framework, the Kakatiyas created a decentralized yet coordinated system of development that drew participation from every section of society — rulers, military elites, merchants, brahmanas, peasants, and artisans.

Epigraphical records reveal that irrigation benefits were shared, religious endowments were formalized, and revenue systems were carefully structured. Development was not monopolized by the crown alone; it was executed collaboratively through layered administration.

In this sense, Kakatiya Telangana represents not merely a political kingdom, but a consciously engineered agrarian civilization built upon water management, sacred legitimacy, and community participation.

Epigraphical Foundations of the Tank–Temple–Town (TTT) Model

The concept of Tank–Temple–Town (TTT) was not merely a theoretical reconstruction of Kakatiya governance. It is firmly supported by inscriptional evidence from multiple regions of Telangana and Andhra Desa, dating from the 12th and 13th centuries.

Epigraphs from the reigns of Ganapatideva and Prataparudra clearly record the systematic linking of:

• Irrigation infrastructure
• Temple establishment
• Village formation
• Revenue structuring
• Royal and subordinate patronage

These inscriptions demonstrate that agrarian expansion was deliberately engineered through integrated planning.

Early Foundations – From Prolaraja Onward

The roots of the Tank–Temple–Town model can be traced to the early Kakatiya rulers, long before the dynasty attained imperial stature.

Epigraphical evidence from the Motupalli and Bayyaram inscriptions records that Prolaraja I constructed a major reservoir known as Kesari Samudram, named after his martial title Ari-gaja-kesari (“lion to elephant-like enemies”). This act demonstrates that even in the formative phase of Kakatiya authority, hydraulic infrastructure was central to royal identity and statecraft.

The Hanamkonda inscription further records that his successor, Beta II, continued the work associated with Kesari Samudram and installed an image of Varuna Deva, the deity of waters. The installation of Varuna signifies the sacralization of water management — embedding irrigation within ritual legitimacy.

These records collectively show:

• Tank construction preceded imperial expansion
• Hydraulic works were dynastic projects, not isolated acts
• Religious symbolism was integrated into water infrastructure
• Settlement and cultivation followed reservoir construction

Thus, from Prolaraja onward, water management was not a reactive policy but a foundational principle of Kakatiya governance.

Kundavaram Inscription – Royal Women and Water Infrastructure

The Kundavaram inscription records that Kundamamba, a Kakatiya royal woman , constructed a large reservoir named Kundasamudram and founded a village called Kundavaram in Chennur region of Adilabad district.

This demonstrates:

• Royal women actively participated in agrarian development
• Tanks were often named after patrons
• Village identity was tied to hydraulic infrastructure
• Temple, tank, and settlement formed a single nucleus

Kondaparti Inscription – Military Elites as Developers (A.D. 1203)

Under Ganapatideva, the Kondaparti inscription records that:

• A commander named Chaunḍa, of the Malayala lineage
• Excavated a tank named Chaunḍa-samudra
• Constructed a Śiva temple named Chaunḍeśvara
• Granted an agrahara to Brahmanas

This inscription clearly proves:

• Military elites were agents of development
• Tanks were named after patrons
• Temple + tank + Brahmana settlement formed an agrarian nucleus
• Subordinates actively executed the TTT model

Ramappa Inscription (Śaka 1135 / A.D. 1213) – Planned Urban-Agrarian Complex

One of the clearest inscriptional demonstrations of the Tank–Temple–Town framework comes from the Ramappa inscription issued during the reign of Kakatiya Ganapatideva.

The inscription records that Recharla Rudra, the commander of the Kakatiya army, founded a new settlement named Palampet. As part of this planned establishment:

• A massive irrigation tank was excavated
• The Rudreshwara (Ramappa) Temple was constructed
• Villages including Nekkonda, Upparapalli, Borlapalli, and Nadikuda were granted as endowments to the deity

This inscription demonstrates several crucial aspects of Kakatiya statecraft:

• Military commanders acted as territorial developers
• Temple construction was integrated with hydraulic infrastructure
• Revenue villages were assigned for ritual maintenance
• Settlement formation was legally documented through endowments

The Palampet complex thus represents a fully operational TTT nucleus — irrigation supporting agriculture, temple stabilizing sacred authority, and endowed villages structuring revenue.

Unlike isolated pious donations, this was a coordinated act of landscape engineering under royal sovereignty.

Tripurantakam Inscription – Merchant Participation (Prataparudra Period)

The Tripurantakam inscription  dated Śaka 1157 (A.D. 1236), during Ganapatideva’s reign; also continued in the Prataparudra period, records a remarkable case of merchant involvement.

A trader named Bairisetti:

• Purchased a trade permit by paying fixed tolls
• Excavated a tank
• Donated one-third of the irrigated land to the temple
• The remaining two-thirds remained under royal share

This reveals:

• Irrigated land legally belonged to the king
• The donor financed the tank
• One-third was endowed to the deity
• Two-thirds remained the royal revenue share

The revenue generated was utilized for irrigation maintenance and agrarian administration.

This case shows how trade, religion, and agriculture were integrated within state policy.

Mupparam Inscription – Agrarian Revenue Structuring

The Mupparam inscription from the reign of Ganapatideva records:

• The establishment of a village named after Muppambika, sister of the king
• A subordinate official, Panta Malli Reddy, son of Bolli Reddy, excavated a tank
• He constructed a temple consecrated to Rameshwara Deva
• Tax was levied proportionate to the land brought under irrigation

The title “Panta Reddy” suggests association with agricultural revenue collection.

This inscription demonstrates:

Integration of irrigation with fiscal policy

• Structured taxation based on irrigated extent
• Role of subordinate officers in expansion
• Temple foundation as part of settlement planning

Godishala Inscription – Organized Agrarian Expansion

• The Godishala inscription (associated with the Kakatiya period, under Ganapatideva) records the deliberate establishment of irrigation infrastructure alongside temple construction and land grants.
• The record indicates:
• Excavation of a tank
• Construction or endowment of a temple
• Allocation of land for cultivation
• Structured sharing of agrarian revenue
• Like other inscriptions of the period, it confirms that:
• Irrigated lands were considered under royal authority
• Portions were endowed to temples for ritual maintenance
• Remaining lands were assessed for revenue
• This inscription strengthens the broader pattern already visible in Kondaparti, Tripurantakam, and Mupparam records — that hydraulic infrastructure was not incidental but institutionally embedded within governance.

Broader Pattern from Multiple Records

Other inscriptions record similar activities:

• Subordinate chiefs granting land to Brahmanas who founded villages and dug tanks
• Forest clearance followed by irrigation works
• Temple construction on tank bunds
• Revenue sharing between crown and deity
• Naming of villages after kings and royal women (Ganapavaram, Rudravaram, Mahadevapuram, Bayyaram, etc.)

In newly founded settlements:

1. Forest land was cleared
2. A suitable catchment was identified
3. A tank was constructed — often between natural hill slopes forming two sides of a bund
4. A mud embankment completed the reservoir
5. A temple was constructed at a sacred and elevated site
6. Agricultural lands were distributed
7. Revenue administration was organized

Thus a full agrarian village was born.

From Inscription to Institution: The Operational TTT Framework

When examined collectively, the inscriptions from Tripurantakam, Kondaparti, Mupparam, Kundavaram, Godishala, and earlier Kakatiya records reveal a consistent and structured developmental pattern. These records do not describe isolated acts of piety or charity; they document an operational system of governance.

The evidence demonstrates that the Tank–Temple–Town (TTT) model was not symbolic — it functioned as an institutional framework embedded within Kakatiya statecraft.

1. Irrigation as the Foundation of Settlement

In almost every inscription:

• A tank is excavated first.
• Forest land is cleared.
• Irrigable land is brought under cultivation.
• Revenue is assessed proportionate to irrigation benefit.

Water was the starting point of village formation.

The selection of catchment areas — often between natural hill slopes with a constructed bund — indicates technical understanding of terrain and hydrology. Irrigation was not accidental; it was engineered.

Engineering the Tank: Structure and Maintenance

The most critical component of tank construction was the earthen embankment (bund), carefully engineered to withstand seasonal monsoon pressure and retain stored rainwater.

Construction complexity varied according to terrain:

• In hilly tracts, natural slopes formed partial bunds, reducing structural labor.
• In level plains, fully artificial embankments required more elaborate engineering.

Although detailed technical manuals have not survived, inscriptional records indicate:

• Direct employment of laborers
• Payments recorded in madas (currency units)
• Documented accounting of construction costs

Maintenance mechanisms were systematic and recurring:

• Annual strengthening of bunds
• Periodic desilting of tank beds
• Repair of canals and sluices

Irrigation officials responsible for upkeep were compensated through:

• Dasavandha (a share of agricultural produce)
• Manya (land grants)

These records reveal that irrigation was supported by a structured maintenance economy sustained through both local participation and administrative oversight.

2. Temple as Legitimizing Authority

The temple was not constructed merely as a religious structure. It served multiple institutional roles:

• Spiritual legitimization of settlement
• Recipient of endowed land (often one-third share)
• Custodian of ritual economy
• Center of community organization

By dedicating a portion of irrigated land to the deity, patrons ensured perpetual worship while also embedding sacred obligation into agrarian management.

Faith reinforced infrastructure.

3. Structured Revenue Administration

Inscriptions clearly show:

• Irrigated land legally remained under royal authority
• Shares were divided between crown and temple
• Taxes were levied proportionate to cultivated extent
• Agricultural officials (such as Panta Reddy) supervised revenue collection
• Trade tolls and permits funded irrigation works

This indicates a regulated fiscal system, not informal land development.

The king did not merely allow tank construction — he integrated it into revenue policy.

4. Decentralized Execution of Policy

The inscriptions collectively reveal that development was executed by:

• Kings
• Royal women
• Military commanders
• Merchants
• Revenue officers
• Local elites

Subordinates built tanks named after themselves.
Merchants financed reservoirs in exchange for trade privileges.
Royal women founded villages bearing their names. In addition to royal initiatives, historical evidence suggests that nearly 5,000 tanks were constructed by subordinate chiefs and local elites across the Kakatiya realm. This reflects a horizontally distributed power structure in which irrigation development became a shared civic responsibility rather than a centralized monopoly.

This demonstrates horizontal distribution of authority under centralized sovereignty.

5. Institutionalized Agrarian Civilization

When viewed together, the inscriptions reveal a repeatable pattern:

1. Forest clearance
2. Tank excavation
3. Temple construction
4. Brahmana or agrarian settlement
5. Revenue structuring
6. Integration into royal administration

This was not occasional patronage but a reproducible model of territorial expansion embedded within state policy.

Conclusion of the Framework

The Tank–Temple–Town system of the Kakatiyas emerges from inscriptional evidence as:

• A hydraulic strategy
• A fiscal policy
• A religious endowment system
• A decentralized administrative mechanism
• A tool for agrarian expansion

Through this integrated framework, the Kakatiyas transformed the upland dry tracts of Telangana into a network of irrigated settlements — many of which continue to exist today.

The inscriptions thus move the TTT model from theory to documented institutional reality.

Territorial Spread of the Tank–Temple–Town Network

The inscriptional evidence further demonstrates that the Tank–Temple–Town framework was not confined to a single locality but extended across vast regions of present-day Telangana and parts of Rayalaseema.

Epigraphs record the establishment of villages named after rulers and royal women, including:

• Ganapavaram and Ghanapuram — associated with Ganapatideva
• Mahadevapuram — linked to Mahadeva
• Rudravaram — commemorating Rudradeva
• Bayyaram — associated with Bayyaladevi
• Kundavaram — founded by Kundamamba
• Mupparam — named after Muppambika

The Tripurantakam inscription (in present-day Prakasam region of Andhra Pradesh) reveals that the TTT model extended beyond core Telangana into frontier zones. It documents merchant participation, tank excavation, temple endowment, and structured revenue division between crown and deity.

Similarly, early Kakatiya records refer to the excavation of Kesari Samudram by Prolaraja, demonstrating that hydraulic expansion began even before full sovereignty.

Regions such as:

• Manthena
• Kaleshwaram
• Chennur
• Narsampeta
• Achampeta
• Khammam
• Kothagudem

bear traces of Kakatiya-era settlement expansion where forest tracts were cleared, tanks excavated, temples erected on bunds, and agrarian villages formalized.

The recurring pattern suggests:

1. Selection of suitable catchment terrain
2. Excavation of a reservoir between natural hill slopes
3. Construction of an earthen bund
4. Establishment of a temple — often on or near the bund
5. Allocation of cultivable lands
6. Revenue structuring under royal authority

This systematic expansion reveals that the Kakatiya state did not merely rule territory — it engineered landscapes.

Sacred Duty and State Policy: The Religious Legitimization of Development

In medieval South Indian thought, the excavation of tanks, construction of temples, and establishment of villages were not merely administrative acts — they were considered sacred duties. Classical dharmic traditions classified such works among the Sapta Santanas — seven meritorious acts believed to ensure spiritual merit and lasting legacy.

The Kakatiyas consciously integrated this religious ideology into statecraft.

Royal Encouragement and Public Participation

The Kakatiya kings granted royal sanction, privileges, and revenue concessions for tank construction. As a result:

• Merchants
• Military commanders
• Revenue officers
• Brahmanas
• Local elites

actively undertook developmental works.

Tank excavation became both a pious act and a recognized instrument of agrarian expansion.

Epigraphical Examples

1. Pedacherukuru Inscription (A.D. 1224)

An inscription from Pedacherukuru (Guntur–Bapatla region) dated to 1224 CE records that Ganapatideva granted a tank named Mogulla Cheruvu as bhoga (endowment) to the deity Shankareswara Swamy.

This demonstrates:

• Royal control over irrigation resources
• Temple-centered allocation of agrarian surplus
• Integration of hydraulic assets into ritual economy

2. Katukuru Inscription (A.D. 1202)

The Katukuru inscription from Huzurabad (dated 1202 CE) records that Mailamba, wife of the commander Chounda Senani, constructed:

• A temple
• A tank named Mailasamudram
• For the benefit of the village

This inscription proves:

• Participation of elite women
• Integration of tank + temple
• Subordinate execution of developmental policy

3. Tripurantakam Inscription – Canal Construction

During the reign of Prataparudra, the Kayastha chief Ambadeva constructed a canal named Rayasahasramallu in the Tandlapaka region.

This indicates:

• Irrigation beyond tanks — canal systems
• Expansion of hydraulic engineering
• Strategic water diversion for cultivation

4. Forest Clearance and New Settlements under Prataparudra

Under the last great Kakatiya ruler Prataparudra, village formation and tank construction reached its peak.

Kaifiyats and inscriptional references indicate that forests in:

• Kurnool
• Nandikotkur
• Achampeta

were cleared to establish new settlements.

For example:

• Duppipadu (Dupadu) was founded after forest clearance and later granted as dana to the brahmin named Srinatha of anumakonda.
• When forest lands in Kurnool were granted to Vidiyam Kommaraju, he, with the assistance of the Brahmana Nagaraju, established villages such as:
• Nagaluti
• Danugatla

These examples demonstrate systematic agrarian colonization in frontier zones.

The Peak of the TTT Expansion

By the reign of Prataparudra:

• Tank construction intensified
• Canal networks expanded
• Forest reclamation accelerated
• Brahmana settlements multiplied
• Revenue systems deepened

The Kakatiya developmental model extended beyond Telangana into parts of Rayalaseema, especially the Kurnool region.

Agriculture was not merely supported — it was systematically expanded into previously uncultivated zones.

Civilizational Transformation

Through this integrated model:

• Water storage enabled cultivation
• Temples stabilized settlement
• Revenue structured administration
• Trade guilds financed expansion
• Royal women legitimized territorial identity

The Kakatiyas transformed upland dry tracts into irrigated agrarian landscapes — many of which remain agriculturally active even today. Their Tank–Temple–Town model was not only administrative policy — it was a civilizational project. 

Sustained irrigation supported cultivation of paddy, cotton, lentils, maize, and sugarcane. The flourishing port of Motupalli and the observations of Marco Polo during Rudramadevi’s reign reflect the prosperity generated by this agrarian base.

Conclusion

The cumulative inscriptional, historical, and regional evidence demonstrates that the Kakatiyas consciously developed and implemented a structured Tank–Temple–Town (TTT) model across Telangana and adjoining regions.

In the upland tracts of Telangana, where seasonal rainfall existed but organized agriculture was limited, the Kakatiyas recognized water as the foundation of prosperity. Through systematic tank excavation, bund construction, canal networks, and watershed planning, they transformed rain-fed landscapes into irrigated agrarian zones. But hydraulic engineering alone was not their strategy.

The Kakatiya rulers and their subordinates intertwined:

• Water management
• Temple construction
• Village formation
• Revenue structuring
• Trade participation
• Religious legitimacy

Each newly excavated tank brought cultivable land under production. Each temple stabilized settlement through ritual authority. Each village was integrated into a structured fiscal system. Agricultural surplus supported trade. Trade funded further development.

What began in core Telangana soon extended across their expanding kingdom, including frontier regions such as parts of present-day Rayalaseema. Forest tracts were cleared, settlements founded, irrigation networks expanded, and agrarian communities institutionalized. The TTT model therefore represents more than a developmental policy.

It was a carefully engineered socio-economic system that interlinked:

• Faith
• Agriculture
• Administration
• Trade
• Community participation

Nearly a thousand years ago, the Kakatiyas demonstrated that decentralized execution under centralized sovereignty could produce sustainable growth.

The agrarian landscapes, irrigation tanks, and settlement patterns visible in Telangana today stand as living testimony to this medieval innovation.

The Tank–Temple–Town model was not symbolic devotion alone. It was a consciously structured civilizational framework that fused ecology, economy, ritual authority, and decentralized governance into a unified system of sustainable development.

Read More

kakatiya Trikutalayam Katkuru

Mutharam Trikutalayam

Kakatiya Trikutalayam Nidigonda

 

Disclaimer:
This article is based on epigraphical records, published inscriptional reports, historical research, and publicly available scholarly sources. Interpretations are presented for educational purposes and may reflect ongoing academic discussions. Readers are encouraged to consult primary inscriptional publications for detailed study.

↑ Back to Top