Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c8: Lecture I. The Break up of the Chola Empire

South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c8

Language
English

Contents

Lecture I. The Break up of the Chola Empire

c8.2

DURING the period of Chola ascendancy, beginning from the days of the great Parāntaka, early in the tenth century, the Pāṇḍyas may be regarded as subordinate to the Chola power. This subordinate position was not habitually acknowledged, and punitive wars had to be undertaken in consequence. At one time under Rājarāja the Great, or his son Rājendra I, the imperial Cholas adopted the practice of appointing members of their family as viceroys of the Pāṇḍya and other kingdoms, with special designations indicating authority over the Pāṇḍya, Kongu and other kingdoms of old. This hardening of the authority of the Cholas reduced the Pāṇḍyas still further in importance so that it might justifiably be said that their power was extinct in the period of the ‘Chola Ascendancy.’ Members of the Pāṇḍya royal family, however, remained active in various places of importance in the Pāṇḍya territory and were causing considerable trouble to the administration. It was in all probability this state of things that led to the planting of military colonies by Kulottunga I, in agricultural tracts in the Pāṇḍya country along the road to Koṭṭāru throughout the whole length of the territory. The Pāṇḍyas often became fugitives in Ceylon from their own country. There are records of several wars waged by the Cholas against the Ceylon rulers for having given asylum to the Pāṇḍyas. Up to the middle of the twelfth century, the Cholas continued to be victorious and successfully asserted their authority over the Pāṇḍyan kingdom, and, to a modified extent, over parts of Ceylon also. In the latter half of the twelfth century however, those that occupied the Chola throne degenerated both in power and personal ability, and, as a consequence the tendency in the border kingdoms, was to throw off the imperial yoke. It was in this state of affairs, when the Pāṇḍya kingdom was already breaking up into a number of principalities, that a disputed succession in Madura brought on an invasion from Ceylon.

c8.3

*The Ceylonese Invasion.*—In A.D. 1170 or 1171 there were two rival claimants to the throne of Madura. One of them Parākrama Pāṇḍya was besieged in Madura by another named Kulaśēkhara. In this war Kulaśēkhara seems to have had the advantage to begin with, and Parākrama in distress appealed for assistance to Parākrama Bāhu of Ceylon who had just then emerged successfully out of a series of wars in his own country. During a period of sixteen years, according to the Mahāvamśa, he was engaged in constant wars against his rivals to bring all Ceylon under one ruler. If the statement of the Mahāvamśa is to be given full credit, he had succeeded in achieving this object of his ambition. On receiving the ambassadors from Parākrama Pāṇḍya, Parākrama Bāhu resolved to fit out and send a great army of invasion to place Parākrama Pāṇḍya on the throne. In the meanwhile Parākrama Pāṇḍya was captured and put to death with his wives and children, and Kulaśēkhara placed himself on the throne of Madura. The invasion started under the famous Ceylon general Laṅkāpura Daṇḍanātha as he is called. The army set out from the capital and reached Mahātittha (Manthot of the maps) in Ceylon. Information was by then received that Kulaśēkhara had taken possession of Madura and had put to death his rival and all his family. Parākrama Bāhu ordered the continuation of the march so that the kingdom might be [Figure: Gandamādavaparvata—Rāmēśvaram (by permission of the Madras Archæological Department)]

c8.4

taken from Kulaśēkhara and given over to one of the children of his friend. From Mahātittha, the army proceeded to a harbour ‘Talabbilla,’ in Ceylon. After a voyage lasting a day and night they sighted the coast on the other side, and effected a landing in spite of opposition, at another haven called Talabbilla on the Pāṇḍyan side of the country.¹

c8.5

¹ Talabbilla on the Ceylon side was apparently the haven forming part of, or perhaps some little way from, Manthote. Talabbilla on the Pāṇḍyan side seems meant for the haven which is nowadays called Puḷiyaḍiśālai, two to three miles straight east from what is called Gaṇḍamādana Parvata; itself two miles north by east of the town of Rāmēśvaram. I make this identification, as in the locality there is current the tradition regarding a Kandyan monarch who built the sanctum of the temple at Rāmēśvaram. This is confirmed by certain inscriptions in the sanctum itself. This monarch got all the stones for the building dressed and fitted in Kandy, and brought them over to be landed at a convenient port thence to be carried over to Rāmēśvaram for the building, the island itself offering no stone quarry for the purpose. Some of these were brought in duplicates, the unused among which are said still to lie in the harbour Puḷiyaḍiśālai. The Gaṇḍamādana Parvata itself carries two foot-prints. These are pointed out as Rama's foot-prints there. But the character of the structure and the footprints themselves seem to indicate that the structure was intended to be a Buddhist shrine which the Ceylon General himself may have built during the occupation of the island. I am not aware of any worship of Rama's feet except the worship of the sandals which he left behind with his brother Bharata according to the Rāmāyaṇa when he went into exile, as a memento of his during his absence in the forests. The distance from there to Parākrama-paṭṭaṇa, the fortified camp of Laṅkāpura would work out correctly on this basis.

c8.6.1

The chief command of the army was given, as was already noted, to the greatest Ceylon general of the time Laṅkāpura Daṇḍanātha. He attacked Rāmēśvaram and, after a number of battles, took possession of the place. He marched further forward to almost where Pamban is at present and took possession of a very convenient haven called Kundukāla² ‘midway between the two seas and four leagues distant from Ramissaram.’ Passing over minor details, Laṅkāpura defeated the Pāṇḍyan forces in a number of villages and towns. On his way back to his camp, he attacked the chieftain Āḷavanda Perumāḷ who was encamped at the ‘village Vadali,’¹ and killed him. It was after this that Kulaśēkhara made a great effort by leading his forces personally. He is said to have collected his armies from all over the Pāṇḍyan kingdom, including auxiliaries from the two Kongus and Tinnevelly. From his headquarters at the fortified villages of Erukoṭṭa and Iḍagalissara (which places I am not able to identify yet) he sent ‘a great army by land’² and many soldiers by sea and ships, to assault the fortress of Parākramapura.’ There was a hotly contested battle, Kulaśēkhara having his horse shot under him, and the Ceylon General got so much the better of his enemy that the very camp of the Pāṇḍya was burnt down. The Ceylonese then marched and occupied Vadali (Vēdāḷai).

c8.6.2

He made a further dash northwards from Vēdāḷai as the base, surprised Dēviyāpaṭṭaṇam (Dēvipaṭṭaṇam, as it is now called) and marched further forwards to Śiriyavala.³ He returned therefrom apparently by way of Kāḷaiyārkoil-Paramaguḍi road and took the two places Aṇivalakkoṭṭa (sometimes called Aṇivalakki in the narrative) and the fortress of Neṭṭūr.⁴ These became afterwards the headquarters of the Ceylon army. While here, information reached the general that one of the sons of Parākrama Pāṇḍya was a fugitive in the Malayāḷam country. This was Vīra Pāṇḍya. Laṅkāpura sent him a message asking him to come over and join him. Sending intimation of this discovery to his master, he marched across, apparently at the instance of Vīra Pāṇḍya to Periyakuḷam in the ghats, and gained possession of Mēlamaṅgalam and Kīḷamaṅgalam. He thought it better to hand these over on terms to the chieftain from whom he took them, and returned to his head-quarters at Aṇivaḷakkoṭṭa. Proceeding from there to Neṭṭūr he made a dash against another place not very far, which is called Mānavīramadura, apparently Manamadura, now a railway station. He defeated the chieftains who held the place, and brought the place under his authority. He then found a number of chieftains collected together at Pātapathā (a place I am not yet able to identify), assaulted the place and took it. He found it necessary now to march north-eastwards to Anjukoṭṭai near Tiruvāḍānai.

c8.6.3

He took the place and the two ports in the vicinity of Toṇḍi and Pāśa (Pāśipaṭṭaṇa, as it is now called), marched further forwards to Kurundaṅguḍi first, and thence to Tiruvēkambama, probably the place now called Tiruvēganpaṭṭu. As the chieftain, apparently of that locality, Māḷava Chakravarti, would not submit and retired to a place called Śemponmāri (on the borders of the Pudukoṭṭa State) in the Tiruppattūr Taluk, the Ceylon general advanced upon the place. The place was considered a great stronghold and the Cholas are said to have failed to take the place after a two years' siege. The Ceylonese are said to have taken it in less than half a day.¹ The Ceylonese in their turn were besieged in the fortress and the siege of the famous stronghold was raised by the heroic deeds of Laṅkāpura and his lieutenants. Apart from this fortress the Pāṇḍyan territory up to the boundary of the Chola country came under the control of the Ceylonese. What is perhaps of greater importance the Vaiśyas (Vessas) and the Muhammadans (Yavanas) of this locality brought presents to him. He restored Śemponmāri however to Māḷava Cakravarti, and retired to Aṇivaḷakki, by way of Tiruvēgambama and Kurundanguḍi. While here he heard that another Tamil chieftain had taken Śiriyavala (Śiruvayal) having defeated Māḷava Cakravarti, whose head-quarters of Śemponmāri also fell into his hands.

c8.6.4

Laṅkāpura intervened between Māḷava Cakravarti and this new chieftain his enemy, and after effecting a reconciliation between the two, retired to Neṭṭūr. He then set about restoring the two tanks that were destroyed at Rājasīha Mahala (Rājasingamangalam) and Vālugama (Vālugrāma, Vālandaravaiḷ).

c8.7

² This is what is called Kundugāl just a mile and a half or two south of Pamban. This locality is made use of by the South Indian Railway authorities both the dry and wet docks for the repair or refit of their steam-launches. I have not been able to trace any sign of the fortifications with the ‘three circuits of walls and twelve gates,’ but there is no doubt that it is the place referred to as Kundukāla. There is no memory of its having been called Parākramapura in the locality at all.

c8.8

¹ This is apparently the Vēdāḷai of to-day about two miles south by west of the Maṇḍapam Camp Railway station.

c8.9

² The tradition is even now current that there was no channel here between Maṇḍapam and Pamban. The name Maṇḍapam is said to have been given to the place as it did contain a Maṇḍapa to which the God of Rāmēśvaram used to be carried on occasions of certain annual festivals. Of course that could not be done across the sea.

c8.10

³ This is apparently Śiruvayal. There are two places of the name in the Ramnad district one on the north by west of Tiruvāḍānai, and another one much farther north along the road from Paramaguḍi to Tiruppattūr ultimately. The former is apparently what is meant here.

c8.11

⁴ Neṭṭūr is about five miles west of Iḷaiyānguḍi and may be about seven or eight miles north-west of Paramaguḍi railway station on the South Indian Railway. This is the place where Kulottunga III defeated and cut off the head of Vira Pāṇḍya. Aṇivalakki must have been very near that.

c8.12

¹ Śemponmāri is said to belong to Talaiyūr-nāḍu in the Tiruppattūr Taluk. Ep. Coll. 128 of 1908.

c8.13

At this stage, Kulaśēkhara reappeared at the head of a vast army with auxiliaries from the Kongus and Tinnevelly. It was then that Parākrama Bāhu himself sent another army under the command of Jagad Vijaya, which arrived at Aṇivaḷakki. The two generals established themselves at Neṭṭūr and Aṇivaḷakki respectively. Laṅkāpura advanced from Neṭṭūr and fought a battle in Mangalam.¹

c8.14

¹ This is the Mangalam otherwise called Vaḷudi Vāḷmangalam about eight miles south from Kaḷaiyārkoil on the road from Tiruppattūr to Paramaguḍi. The town is in ruins and an extensive raised plot of ground is pointed out as the site of the old city.

c8.15

He pushed forward from there to Śiriyavala (Śiruvayal) again.² Here he defeated the chiefs Puṅkoṇḍa Nāḍāḷvār and his allies, and burnt down the two storeyed palace of this chief. He then retired to Tirikkānupper (Kaḷaiyārkoil). In the meanwhile his colleague Jagad Vijaya marched west towards Manamadura and took a number of places, returning to Neṭṭūr. The two Ceylon armies now joined together and marched upon Tiruppālūr or Tiruppāli apparently against Kulaśēkhara. Kulaśēkhara in the meanwhile had come to the city of Rajina (not identified yet). Here a great battle took place between Kulaśēkhara and the combined Ceylon armies. Kulaśēkhara was ultimately defeated and the city of Rajina was taken by the Ceylonese. This brings the first part of the campaign to a close. Kulaśēkhara retired from the Pāṇḍya country and found shelter in the country of the Toṇḍamān and sought assistance of the Cholas from there.

c8.16

² Apparently the place on the road from Tiruppattūr to Paramaguḍi a little to the north of where the Śarugaṇi river cuts the road.

c8.17

Having heard of the flight of Kulaśēkhara, the Ceylon general marched upon Madura and set Vīra Pāṇḍya in charge of the place. The chiefs that supported Kulaśēkhara and submitted to the Ceylonese after Kulaśēkhara’s defeat, were restored to their places. Having done so much to secure the capital and the territory round it, the Ceylon general went in pursuit of Kulaśēkhara to Tiruppattūr along the main road from Madura. He took possession of Tiruppattūr and chased the garrison from there along ‘the highway’ till they reached Pon-Amarāvati, ‘a space of three leagues.’ He ultimately entered Pon-Amarāvati, and burnt down the three storeyed palace there, and ‘many other houses and barns that were full of paddy they burnt down.’ ‘This valiant commander, that he might calm the fears of the inhabitants of the country, made a proclamation by beat of drums (assuring them that he would protect them).’ He then returned to Madura.

c8.18

In Madura he received orders from head-quarters to set about the celebration of the festival of the coronation of Vīra Pāṇḍya. The General Laṅkāpura made ready for the coronation and ‘appointed Māḷava Chakkavatti (Māḷava Chakravarti) and Māḷavarāyar and Talaiyūr Nāḍāḷvār, men of the Lambakanna race to perform the duties of the office of Lambakanna.¹ He then caused a proclamation to issue inviting all the chieftains of the Pāṇḍya kingdom to assemble for this ceremony. ‘He caused the prince to be anointed duly in the temple which stood at the northern gate of the palace of the former kings, and which aforetime had been honoured with the sound of the drums of victory. The famous general then caused the prince to go round the city in state.’

c8.19

¹ ‘Lambakannadhuram’ the office is called. This could only mean the chiefship of the Lambakannas. This term means those that have pendent-ear-lobes, and seems to refer to the Nāṭṭukoṭṭai chetties who claim a right to a similar high function at the courts of Tamil kings.

c8.20

Kulaśēkhara meanwhile had obtained the assistance of the Toṇḍamān¹ and others, and he issued from the mountain fastnesses and took the stronghold of Mangalam. Among the number of Mangalams about Madura it is difficult to settle which this is. From the circumstances of the narration it seems to be the Mangalam in Śāttūr Taluk. Fortifying himself near the place he fought against the allies and relations of the Toṇḍamān chief and took the fortress; he followed up his victory by capturing Sivaliputtur (Śrīvilliputtūr) in the Tinnevelly district. Kulaśēkhara then made a supreme effort by collecting the forces from Tirinaveli (Tinnevelly), and sought and obtained the assistance of the two Kongus. Collecting his armies he took his stand at the fortress Santaneri.² The two Ceylon generals, Laṅkāpura and Jagad Vijaya, made a joint attack upon Kulaśēkhara who cut open the bund of a tank to prevent the enemy from making use of it. The generals however repaired the breach and set forward against Kulaśēkhara defeating him in battle and took two villages called Sirimalakka and Kattala (Kuttalam). The former Laṅkāpura ordered to be burnt down as that was the place where Parākrama Pāṇḍya was slain. He marched further forward from there and occupied the village Colakulāntaka (Śolakulāntaka). He now received a large accession of strength from the chieftains of the Chola country. Among those that brought him reinforcements, we find the name Pallava Rāyar of the inscriptions, as also several other Nāḍāḷvārs who were all chieftains of fortresses in what is now the state of Pudu-koṭṭa and its southern frontier. With these allies Kulaśēkhara fixed his camp in Pāṇḍu Naḍukoṭṭa and Ūriyēri. Outmanœuvring Kulaśēkhara’s forces from there the two Ceylon generals marched upon Palamcotta, drove Kulaśēkhara out of it and took the fortress. While there they heard Kulaśēkhara had marched towards Madura. They marched immediately on Madura and Kulaśēkhara again sought refuge in the Chola country.

c8.21

¹ Perhaps the chieftains of Arantāngi who had this title in the period immediately following and before the rise of the Pudukkoṭṭa Toṇḍamāns.

c8.22

² This seems meant for a place called ‘Sattalēri in inscriptions, in the Ramnad Taluk (vide No. 1 of 1912).

c8.23

Leaving Jagad Vijaya at Paṭṭanallūr, Laṅkāpura marched forward to Tirukkānappēr. About this time Kulaśēkhara applied to the Chola king actually for assistance and obtained from him an army commanded by Pallava Rāyar, and other chiefs. He sent the army including the auxiliaries to the ports of Toṇḍi and Pāśa, possibly by sea. When Laṅkāpura heard of this he ordered his colleague to keep watch in Madura while he himself marched further from Tirukkānappēr upon the frontier fortress of Kiḷānilaya (Kiḷānilai in the Tiruppattur Taluk and on the utmost northern border of Madura). The battle here seems to have taken the form of a running fight all along the road from Kiḷānilai to the two ports of Vaḍa Maṇamēkkuḍi and Maṇamekkuḍi (Maṇamēlkuḍi at the mouth of the Veḷḷār, and the town and suburb north of it). Having defeated the Tamil chiefs, Laṅkāpura burnt down these two ports and another Manjakkuḍi. As a punishment for this interference of the Cholas, he burnt the Chola country, for a distance of seven leagues. He then marched across the road to the village called Vēlankuḍi¹ that belonged to the chief Niga-ladha Rāyar, who had gone over to Kulaśēkhara. This chief had succeeded in enlisting the co-operation of various other chieftains and the armies had swollen in size by various contingents including those of Tinnevelly. Kulaśēkhara took his stand in Pon-Amarāvati. Laṅkāpura marched from Vēlankuḍi. Having been defeated again at Pon-Amarāvati, Kulaśēkhara fled from the place. Laṅkāpura then felt that he had rid the Pāṇḍya country of the enemies of Vīra Pāṇḍya and returned to his headquarters. He then ordered the use of the Ceylon coin *Kahapana* bearing the superscription of Parākrama throughout the Pāṇḍya country of his ally. Sending forward, the men, horses and elephants captured in war, he himself returned to Ceylon, handing over the Pāṇḍya kingdom to Vīra Pāṇḍya. Parākrama Bāhu received him as became a victorious general, and in memory of this great victory founded the village of Pāṇḍu Vijayaka, the lands of which he distributed in charity among the Brahmans. Thus ended the great Ceylon war.

c8.24

¹ There are two Vēlankuḍis in the vicinity. The one is a temple-town near Kānāḍukāttān; but the Vēlankuḍi referred to here is the village of the name, a few miles from Tiruppattūr on the old high road leading from

c8.25

The Ceylon account is certainly one sided, and describes the war in true epic fashion. The victory is all in favour of the Ceylonese generals, and yet we find ultimately Vīra Pāṇḍya does not find himself settled upon his throne firmly, ruling over the country subjugated to his authority. The Mahāvamśa itself admits that Kulaśēkhara had obtained assistance from his cousins in the two Kongus.¹ The Chola inscriptions that describe this war make it appear that the Chola intervention under Pallava Rāyar, the son of Edirilī-sōḷa Śambuvarāyan, was effective, and was the deciding factor in the retirement of the² Ceylonese. Kulaśēkhara was able, after the departure of the Ceylon army, to main-

c8.26

¹ See Mahāvamśa by Turnour and Wijesimha chapters 76-77, and Venkayya. Epi. Rep. for 1899.

c8.27

² Ārpākkam and Tiruvālaṅgāḍu Inss. Ep. Coll. 20 of 1899 and 465 of 1905.

c8.28

Madura to Pon-Amarāvati by Tiruppattūr, and thence to Trichinopoly. It is also on the road, across this, along the frontier between the Chola country and the Pāṇḍya from Paṭṭukoṭṭa to Tiruppattūr.

c8.29

tain the campaign, and ultimately victory seems to have turned in his favour. The war continued against Vīra Pāṇḍya even after the retirement of the Singhalese. Kulaśēkhara died in the course of the war or soon after. The last great Chola Kulottunga III, as heir-apparent, took up the cause of his son Vikrama Pāṇḍya vigorously, and, according to the Chola record at Tirukkolambūdūr of the fourth year of Kulottunga III (A.D. 1182) ‘the Singhalese soldiers had their noses cut off and rushed into the sea. Vīra Pāṇḍya himself was compelled to retreat. The town of Madura was captured and made over to Vikrama Pāṇḍya.’¹ The war thus ended in favour of the Cholas, sometime in the seventies of the twelfth century.

c8.30

¹ No. 1 of 1899. *vide* Ep. Rep. for 1899, Section 38; K.V.S. Iyer, Historical Sketches of Ancient Dekhan, p. 161.

c8.31

In regard to the date of the whole war, inscriptions of the fifth year of Rājādhiraja II, who ascended the throne in A.D. 1171–2² describe it and therefore the war must have taken place before A.D. 1175 which is the date of the Arpākkam grant. According to the Mahāvamśa it commenced some time after the sixteenth year of Parākrama Bāhu.

c8.32

² Epi. Rep., 1904; p. 12, Section 21; and pp. 206 and 7 S. I. Ins. iii.

c8.33

The Results of the Chola Intervention.—The Chola intervention in this Pāṇḍya war restored the Pāṇḍyas to some little of their power. At the same time it contributed largely to the weakening of the Chola hold upon the Pāṇḍya country. Soon after the war however, the Chola throne was occupied by the last great Chola Kulottunga III who, as crown prince, had already rendered distinguished service in the war against the Ceylonese in favour of Kulaśēkhara Pāṇḍya, and after his death, in favour of his son Vikrama Pāṇḍya. He succeeded to the throne in A.D. 1178 and his rule lasted till A.D. 1216.

c8.34

Kulottunga (with titles Parakēsari, Tribhuvana Chola, Vīrarājēndra and Konērinmaikoṇḍān) was in all probability the son of Rājarāja II, and came to the throne in succession to Rājādhirāja, an uncle. He took an honourable share in turning back the Ceylonese from the southern frontier of the Pudukoṭṭa State, making them beat an inglorious retreat from what promised to be a glorious invasion of conquest. Records of this ruler are available from his fifth to the fortieth year. The first eight years of his reign seem to have been uneventful. Records of his ninth year state that he assisted Vikrama Pāṇḍya against the son of Vīra Pāṇḍya, defeated the Māras (Pāṇḍya's) army, drove the Simhala (Ceylon) army into the sea, took Madura from Vīra Pāṇḍya and bestowed it on Vikrama Pāṇḍya.¹ This means that the civil war in the Pāṇḍya country was renewed after the death of Kulaśekhara, the ally of the Cholas. The Ceylonese still helped Vīra Pāṇḍya, and Kulottunga had to intervene in favour of Vikrama, the son of his father's ally. A record of his eleventh year states that Kulottunga defeated and cut off the nose of Vīra Pāṇḍya's son, bestowed the crown of Madura upon Vikrama Pāṇḍya; and, when Vīra Pāṇḍya took up arms to wipe off this disgrace, ‘took his crowned head at Neṭṭūr’,² and ‘carried his queen into servitude’. It was apparently on this occasion that both the Pāṇḍya and Kerala rulers took their seats some way from the throne, and received from him their kingdoms and new dignities.

c8.35

¹ S. I. Ins. iii, p. 207.

c8.36

² For what this means see below.

c8.37

In his nineteenth year he undertook a successful invasion northwards and entered Kāñchi. He did not stop short there, but went farther north as far as Nellore where there are inscriptions of Kulottunga III. Three or four years later he brought the two Kongus again under his authority, and by this act perhaps extended his sphere of authority well within the modern state of Mysore. His Hoysala contemporary, Ballāḷa II, had his authority recognized in the Anantapur District. The two apparently came to an understanding on this frontier and maintained themselves at peace cemented by a marriage alliance. One of the queens of Ballāḷa II was known by the title Chola Mahādēvi. As long as peace was preserved on this frontier the Pāṇḍyas could not stir. It was only when the Hoysalas attempted an extension of territory on this side that the Pāṇḍyas could find the occasion to rise on their side.¹

c8.38

¹ Epi. Rep., 1912, Sections 30 and 45.

c8.39

The Chola Empire in the beginning of the thirteenth century.—At the beginning of the thirteenth century A.D. the Chola empire stood restored so far to its former ascendency in South India under this ‘Great Chola’ Kulottunga III that one would hardly have expected its fall to come in the course of the next half century. The causes that ultimately brought about this decadence were discernible even then. The Pāṇḍya country, reduced to subordination after such expenditure of blood and treasure by Kulottunga, could but have rendered a sullen obedience. This had been rendered all the more galling after what Kulottunga had done to make a demonstration of his power. Having finally defeated the rebel Vīra Pāṇḍya, Kulottunga entered Madura and had himself anointed both as a hero-warrior and victor-overlord of the Pāṇḍya. In order that this might be the better impressed upon his enemies and feudatories, he arranged that both his Pāṇḍya and Kēraḷa feudatories be seated, apparently without thrones, a little away from him on one side. Seating himself upon the throne with his queen he placed his feet upon ‘the crowned head of the vanquished Vīra Pāṇḍya’, which had been out off on the field of battle according to the inscription, as if to say that that was to be the fate of those who would not acknowledge his authority. After this he conferred special honours upon both the friendly Pāṇḍya and the Kēraḷa rulers, and even treated the latter to a banquet along with him to show the honours that awaited loyal allegiance.¹

c8.40

¹ There are three points upon which I differ regarding the interpretation of the Śrīrangam Epigraph of Kulottunga III. (S. I. Ins. iii. 88).
(1) In line 3, there is the statement that Vira Pāṇḍya’s son had his nose cut off as a mark of disgrace—Vira Pāṇḍya, to wipe off this disgrace, raised an army and fought the battle of Neṭṭūr.
(2) In line 4 occurs the expression வீரபாண்டியன் முடித்தலையுங் கொண்டமர் முடித்து, i.e., bringing the war to a close by taking off the crowned-head of Vira Pāṇḍya (No. 370 of 1915); then follows அவன்மடக் கொடியை வளம்ஏற்றி. The word ‘Veḷam’ is read ‘Veḷam,’ and interpreted as ‘the Pāṇḍya queen having been sent into the harem’ (in concubinage apparently). The correct word is Veḷam with the short e meaning service in Veḷāṭṭi. Cf. வெளத்துப் பெண்டாட்டி கள்ளிச்சி in Pudukoṭṭa No. 82 in course of publication. The Pāṇḍya queen was reduced to servitude in the Chola harem (see note 4, p. 215 and note 5, p. 218, S. I. Ins. iii. 88, and the inscriptions printed below 2 and 3.
(3) Line 5 கொடிவழங்கும் வில்லவர்க்கு means, I submit, ‘to the Villavan (Kēraḷa) on whose flag is usually seen the bow,’ whose ensign was the bow. To him Kulottunga gave wealth that kings never obtain. The whole point of the record is that Kulottunga was as great in war as he was liberal in gifts, to justify his hoisting of ‘the banners of generosity and valour.’

c8.41

Such a treatment could not but leave the feudatories smarting under the disgrace, and would inevitably lead to an effort to re-assert their own dignity and to be on the look out for opportunities to inflict similar humiliation in their turn. That seems to have been the frame of mind of the Pāṇḍyan feudatories and instances of retaliation will appear in the history of their restoration.

c8.42

The Principal Feudatories of the Cholas.—At about this period the following chieftains appear as Kulottunga’s vassals in the records of his reign, as the records acknowledge the Chola suzerainty:—

c8.43

(1) The chieftain of Nellore (Vikramasimhapura) took the title Madhurāntaka Pottappi Chola; the first member of this title was perhaps in compliment to his overlord, Madhurāntaka, ‘the death of Madura’, having been an old and a very common title among the Cholas. Nellore is defined in one of these records to have belonged to the Peḍai Nāḍu sub-division, of the district Śēdikulamānikka vaḷanāḍu of the province, Jayangondaśoḷamaṇḍalam. Two chieftains are mentioned with this title and their personal names are given as Tammasiddhi-araiśan with date the twenty-sixth year of Kulottunga III (A.D. 1203-4), and Nallasiddhi araiśar, an uncle of the former with date the thirty-first year of the same emperor (A.D. 1208-9). Two other records of Tammusiddhi are dated A.D. 1205-6 and A.D. 1207-8.¹

c8.44

¹ S. I. Ins. iii. 207.

c8.45

(2) The next one is a Ganga chief Amarābharaṇa Śīya Gangan, otherwise Tiruvēgambamuḍaiyān. There are two records of this chief, one at Kāñchīpuram, dated the twenty-seventh year of Kulottunga III, according to which the chief made a gift of a lamp; and the other of the thirty-fourth year according to which his queen Ariapiḷḷai made a gift of two lamps to the temple at Tiruvallam.

c8.46

(3) There comes a class of chieftains who may be referred to as belonging to the Śengēṇi family and associated with Tiruvallam. The earliest known member is Śengēṇi Miṇḍan Attimallan Śambuvarāyan with a date in the eighth year of Kulottunga III. The next one in order of time is Śengēṇi Ammaiyappan Kaṇṇuḍaiperumān, otherwise Vikramaśoḷa Sambuvarāyan with a date in the eleventh year of Kulottunga III. Then follows his son Choḷappiḷḷai, otherwise Aḷagiyaśoḷan, otherwise Edirili Śoḷa Śambuvarāyan, son of Śengēṇi Ammaiyappan, probably the one above. This last refers himself to the twenty-seventh and thirty-third years of Kulottunga III.

c8.47

(4) Two other chiefs are mentioned along with Śīyagangan, and one of the Śengēṇi chiefs mentioned above in two records of the years twenty and twenty-one of Kulottunga III at Śengaṇma (Chengama). These are Viḍukādaḷagiyaperumāl of Dharmapuri, Tagaḍūr in the Salem district, and Malayan Vinayai Veṉṟān, otherwise Karikāla Chola Aḍaiyūrnāḍaḷvān. The former of these figures prominently in the records of Kulottunga’s successor.

c8.48

(5) Another family of chiefs comes into notice from the Śeṅgaṇma record of the twenty-first year. Two of them are mentioned, namely, Tirukkāḷattidēva and his son Vīra Narasimhadēva. The father’s name occurs in records of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Kulottunga, while that of the son is available in those of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh years of Rājarāja III, the successor of Kulottunga. This Vīra Narasimha seems the chief referred to in a record of the fifteenth year of Kulottunga where he is described as ‘Prince Simha, alias Vīrarākshasa Yādavarāja, the son of Yādavarāja alias Tirukkāḷattidēva.’ Both father and son gave themselves the title (biruda) ‘Vengi-vallabha,’ and claimed the ‘Śaśikula-Chāḷukya’ lineage. The Veṅkaṭēśapperumāḷ temple at Tirupati contains a number of inscriptions of this family. One of them refers itself to the thirty-fourth year of Tribhuvana Chakravartin Vīra-Narasimhadēva Yādavarāya. According to another of his fortieth year the temple was rebuilt. Another chief Tribhuvana Chakravartin Tiruvēṅgaḍanātha Yādavarāya has a record of his eighth year, and belonged in all probability to the same family.

c8.49

Geographical and Political Relations of these Chieftains. -- This analysis of Kulottunga’s records indicates that the Telugu Chola feudatories had their territory in the north with capital at Nellore. Then south of them was the family of Yādavarāyas with capital at Kāḷahasti, and claiming descent from the family of the Eastern Chāḷukyas. Then there was the Ganga chief associated with Tiruvallam, his territory lying along the Pālār basin. Then came the Śeṅgēṇi chiefs connected also with Tiruvallam, and possibly having their territory extending towards Tiruvaṇṇāmalai and Śeṅgaṇma; up the Ghats and in the Salem district were the chieftains of Tagaḍūr (Dharmapuri). Besides these figure two or three others prominently. The first that is mentioned is the Edirili Śoḷa Śambuvarāyan, the father of Pallavarāyar at Śēndamangalam and Kūḍal (Cuddalore). This family is sometimes described as Kāḍava. Then west and north there were the Malayamān chiefs of Tirukkovilūr and Kiḷiyūr. Farther west and in the Āttūr division of the Salem district was the chiefship of Poṇparappi taking in Magadaimaṇḍalam. There seems to have been another chiefship in this region under the Vāṇakkovaraiyars with head-quarters at Taḍāvūr. These were the divisions of the empire on its northern frontier. The political relationships between these chiefs and their connection with the head-quarters is exhibited in two compacts entered into by some of them. A record of the thirteenth year of Kulottunga gives the details of a compact between two neighbouring chieftains, Rājarājadēvan Poṇparappinār, otherwise Kulottunga Chola Vāṇakkovarayan of Āragalūr, and Kiḷiyūr Malayamān of Tirukkovilūr. It was stipulated ‘that in settling the extent of the country belonging to each, the dominion lying to the south of the river Āḷvinayāru must go to the former, and the country to the north of the same should be held by the latter; that they should not behave inimically towards one another as long as they live; that they should act in conjunction in serving the king; and that if any harm is done to one, the other must take it as done to himself and render the necessary military assistance by sending his chiefs, army and horse’. In another epigraph of the thirty-fifth year a similar compact is recorded between the Śengēṇi chief Ammaiyappan Aḷagiyaśōḻan, otherwise Ediriliśōḻa Śambuvarāyan on the one hand, and three other chiefs on the other, namely (1) Poṇparappiṉāṉ Vāṇakkovarayan, (2) Kulottungaśōḻa Vāṇakkovarayar and (3) the King’s brother-in-law Kāḍavarāya. The stipulation was that the three should not be enemies but the friends of the first Śengēṇi chief, ‘neither giving shelter to offenders against him nor setting up new offenders.’ On his side the Śengēṇi chief agreed to observe a similar mode of conduct. If he did otherwise ‘he would be the bearer of shoes and betel bags both to his kinsman and to his enemies. He would also be one not born to his father.’¹ The clear statement of united service to the emperor seems directly to negative the inference in the Epigraphist’s Reports, that the government was unsettled. Kulottunga’s power was growing stronger as he advanced in his reign. These compacts indicate the freedom that the feudatories enjoyed against common enemies and disturbers of the peace. These chieftains are located on the most vulnerable frontier of the Empire, and the time was such that invasions were possible. United action would be absolutely necessary having regard to the available means of communication. The very terms of the compact stamp them as extradition treaties against criminals and gangs of robbers who must have been harrying the border lands then as now. These chiefs came to an agreement for united action in regard to these, apparently under the countenance of the head-quarters. Other instances of such action even by the people are extant in regard to really anarchical times.

c8.50

¹ Ep. Rep., 1914, Sec. 17, p. 91.

Kulottunga, Builder of the Śiva Temple at Tribhuvanam

c8.s1.1

During a long reign of about forty years Kulottunga III was able to keep the empire intact and carry on extensive works of improvement at the same time. He was a Śaiva. There is a story current at Tiruvidaimarudūr in the Tanjore district that he was guilty of having put to death a Brahman. This atrocity weighed on his mind, and the spirit of his victim haunted him day and night. As a measure of expiation the king visited all the famous Śaiva shrines of holy reputation. Failing everywhere else he sought relief at Tiruviḍaimarudūr. As was usual when he entered the sacred precincts, the spirit awaited his return at the door. After fervent appeal to the God, the king received advice to elude pursuit by escaping from the sanctum by a manhole in the rear, and got out of the temple by the West Gate, opposite the East by which he entered. He rode hard till he reached a village a little over a mile from the temple, and turned round to see whether the ghost followed him. Much to his relief he did not see it, and in thanksgiving for this great boon he vowed to construct a temple to the ‘God of his heart.’ He called the place Tiruppuvanam (the forest where he turned first). Whatever the actual truth of the story, an image of the ghost is found placed at the east entrance of the Tiruviḍaimarudūr temple, and a hole in the wall of the sanctum is pointed out as the one by which he escaped. Inscriptions copied in the temple at Tribhuvanam show that the temple was consecrated to Śiva, called here Kampaharēśvara (the God that removed the quaking due to fear). The king is described by the names Kulottunga and Tribhuvana Vīra, and receives the title Pāṇḍyāri (the enemy of the Pāṇḍya), who conquered the ruler of Simhala and the lord of Kēraḷa, and killed Vīra Pāṇḍya. He performed the anointment of heroes after capturing Madura. These details make the builder of the Tiruppuvanam temple identical with Kulottunga III. The inscription is in duplicate, and contains a record of the building works of this great Chola in whose reign the Empire of the Cholas retained much of its glory undiminished.

c8.s1.2

His other building works.—He built the mukhamanḍapa of Sabhāpati at Chidambaram, the gopura of the goddess Girīndrajā and the enclosing verandah of the shrine. Having done so much it is no wonder that he is described as an ēkabhakta, the bhakta without a peer, of Śiva at Chidambaram. He built the great temple of Ekāmrēśvara (at Kāñchīpuram); the temple of Hālahālāśya at Madura; the temple at Madhyārjuna (Tiruviḍaimarudūr); the temple of Śrī Rājarājēśvara;¹ the temple of Valmīkēśvara at Tiruvārūr, the big gopura and the sabhā maṇḍapa, the audience hall, of the last temple specifically. Lastly the king built this Tribhuvanavīrēśvara, which accounts for the name of the place being Tribhuvana (Tam-Tiruppuvanam) whose brilliant, tall and excellent vimāna (tower over the sanctum) interrupts the sun (in his course). The temple was consecrated by the establishment of Śiva and Pārvatī in the temple, the officiating priest having been his own religious preceptor Somēśvara, the son of Śrīkaṇṭa Śambhu. He is known by the surname Īśvara Śiva. It was at the instance of this Rājaguru (royal chaplain) that the privilege of collecting a brokerage fee by the village made to a temple at Kuḷikkarai in the Tanjore district, in the fifth year of Kulottunga III, was registered on stone in his twenty-eighth year. (No. 82 of 1911). Kulottunga was personally a devoted Śaiva and made large benefactions to the ‘God of his heart.’²

c8.s1.3

¹ The identification of this Rājarājēśvara is not quite beyond a doubt yet. Tanjore is known by that name. The Epigraphist, Mr. Krishna Sastri, identifies it with the Airāvatesvara temple at Dārāsuram, as it is called, near Kumbakonam. This seems quite likely. If so the sculptures in the temple will throw a great deal of light upon Śaiva history. There are images of the several Adiyārs and devotees of Śiva each one with a label giving the name. Some of these latter remain written, but yet uncarved.

c8.s1.4

² Ep. Rep., 1908, Sections 64-7.

c8.s1.5

His religious policy.—There seems to have been a severe famine in the twenty-third year of his reign, i.e. the first year of the thirteenth century, when the distress was so great that a Veḷḷāḷan (an upper class agriculturist) sold himself and his two daughters for 110 kāśu to the temple. Devoted Śaiva as Kulottunga was, there is a reference in a record of his son to his twenty-second year (i.e. A.D. 1300), which states, according to the Epigraphist, that ‘in the twenty-second year of Periyadēvar, the elder king, there was a general crusade against monasteries of this type (kuhai idikalaham) when all the property of the monastery under reference was confiscated’. The monastery under reference is one at Tirutturaippūṇḍi where a Śaiva devotee, Tiruchchirrambala Mudaliar, came into residence at the request of the inhabitants of the locality, who built a monastery and provided for feeding strangers that might be there on a visit. It is not clear from the record, as published, whether this was due to an act of persecution by the state, or a mere outburst of popular fanaticism. It can hardly be the former, as it is called a ‘kalaham’ an outburst or a riot, and as the devotee continued there apparently till his death two years after. In his twenty-fourth year Kulottunga III made a grant for the worship of the Nāyanmārs (the sixty-three Śaiva devotees) according to No. 506 of the Epigraphists’ collection for the year 1912. Again according to No. 466 of the same collection they suffered a paḷḷichchandam (a Jain temple) in the locality. It is not safe to infer from this with the epigraphists, that the kuhai idikalaham, which happened in the twenty-second year of Periyadēvar (i.e. Kulottunga III) ‘must have been instigated by the Brahmans against the non-Brahmanical Śaiva maṭhas.’ Such a general persecution is the more unlikely as we have reference to the prosperous existence of four of these non-Brahman monasteries in the reign of Rājarāja III, the successor of Kulottunga III.

c8.s1.6

His Administration.—In other respects Kulottunga’s administration was carried on efficiently on the lines laid down by his great ancestors. There is a reference to one of the periodical revisions of distribution of the lands of the village among the Śāliya-nagarattār (the weaver-class) at Tiruppālatturai.¹

c8.s1.7

¹ No. 441 of Ep. Coll. for 1912.

c8.s1.8

A piece of land purchased for laying out a road for carrying in procession the image of Śīrāḷa-Piḷḷaiyār (deified-infant that was cooked and served by his devoted parents Śiruṭṭoṇḍa and his wife to God Śiva) from Tiruchaṅgāṭṭāṅguḍi to Marugal, was made tax-free and removed from ‘the register’ by royal order.¹

c8.s1.9

¹ No. 66 of Ep. Coll. for 1913.

c8.s1.10

The left-hand classes under Kulottuṅga III.—Before passing on to a consideration of the reign of Rājarāja III, one or two other special features of the reign of Kulottuṅga III require to be noted. A record of his fortieth year at Ūṟṟattūr relates to a decision that the Śrutimāns recorded, after a meeting held in the hall Uttamaśōḷan of the Siddhāratnēśvara temple on behalf of the ninety-eight sub-divisions of the Iḍangaiyār (left-hand classes). In the words of the record: ‘While, in order to kill the demons that disturbed the sacrifices of the sage Kaśyapa, we were made to appear from the Agni Kuṇḍa (the sacrificial fire-pit) and, while we were thus protecting the said sacrifice, Chakravartin Arindama honoured the officiating sage-priests (rishis) by carrying them in a car and led them to a Brahmana colony (newly founded by himself). On this occasion we were made to take our seats on the hind part of the car, and to carry the slippers and umbrellas of these sages. Eventually with these Brāhmaṇa sages we also were made to settle down in the villages of Tiruveḷḷarai, Pāchchil, Tiruvāśi, Tiruppiḍavūr, Ūṟṟattūr and Kāraikkuḍi of Śennivaḷakkūṟṟam (all of which are places now in the Trichinopoly district). We received the clan-name Iḍangai, because the sages (while they got down from their cars) were supported by us on their left side. The ancestors of our own sect having lost their credentials and their insignia in jungles and bushes we were ignorant of our origin. Having now once learnt it, we the members of the ninety-eight subsects enter into a compact, in the fortieth year of the king, that we shall hereafter behave like the sons of the same parents, and what good or evil may befall any one of us will be shared by all. If anything derogatory happens to the Iḍangai class, we will jointly assert our rights till we establish them. It is also understood that only those who, during their congregational meetings to settle communal disputes, display the birudas of horn, bugle and parasol, shall belong to our class. Those who have to recognize us now and hereafter in public, must do so from our distinguishing symbols, the feather of the crane and the loose hanging hair (?) The horn and the conch-shell shall also be sounded in front of us, and the bugle blown according to the fashion obtaining among the Iḍangai people. Those who act in contravention of these rules shall be treated as the enemies of our class. Those who behave differently from the rules (thus) prescribed for the conduct of the Iḍangai classes shall be excommunicated and shall not be recognized as Śrutimāns. They will be considered slaves of the classes who are opposed to us'. ¹ There are a number of other documents relating to this particular class which go to indicate that their occupation was agriculture, perhaps not of the peasant proprietor variety. A somewhat later record from Āḍuturai ² in the Trichinopoly district relates to an agreement arrived at among themselves between the 'right-hand' ninety-eight subsects and 'the left-hand' ninety-eight, of the Vaḷudilambaṭṭu Uśāvaḍi against the Brahmaṇa and Veḷḷāḷa land owners (kāṇiyāḷans) of the division. While these documents afford evidence of the hardships to which the agricultural labourers were occasionally subjected, these also indicate clearly that these classes were quite conscious of their rights, and were allowed the freedom to 'jointly assert our rights till we establish them'.

c8.s1.11

¹ Ep. Rep., 1913, p. 109, Sec. 39.

c8.s1.12

² Ep. Coll, 34 of 1913.

c8.s1.13

Communal Responsibility.—We may note here two other examples of communal responsibility in matters of administration, and take leave of Kulottunga III. The first has reference to an unusual impost by a governor who is described as Piḷḷaiyār (prince) Yādavarāyar. In the thirty-fourth year of the king¹ this officer levied the tax *pon-vari* upon the village Punnaivāyal, otherwise Rājanārāyaṇa Chatur-vēdimangalam, apparently a Brahman establishment. The tax was one-fourth *māḍai* upon every *vēli* of land, but this levy failed to make the usual exemption of uncultivated wastes in the village. The collection of this impost was entrusted to a special officer. He collected the utmost he could out of the landholders and held the village assembly responsible for the balance. In this predicament the Brahman members sold the eighty *vēlis*, constituting the village Kuḷattūr, to a certain Pichchan Duggai-āḷvān for 200 *kāśu*. These eighty *vēlis* were assigned by the purchaser to a Viṣṇu temple, a Jain Paḷḷi, a Piḍāri (village deity) shrine, the Bhaṭṭas (Brahmans), etc., and sixty *vēlis* made over with the permission of the king for the upkeep of the Vyākaraṇamaṇḍapa in the Tiruvoṟṟiyūr temple. The whole village was later on made rent free by order of the king. The record, as it has come down to us, is hardly complete enough to warrant any positive inferences. It would be interesting to know whether the impost was a new levy or an old one; whether it was levied with the consent of the community or otherwise. It seems possible to infer that this uniform levy and its unusually strict collection were intended to compel the bringing into cultivation of lands unnecessarily left uncultivated.

c8.s1.14

¹ Ep. Coll. 202 of 1912, and Ep. Rep. 1913, p. 109, Sec. 39.

c8.s1.15

Another record of the fortieth year of Kulottunga III from Tiruvaraṅguḷam in the Pudukoṭṭa State declares certain *dēvadāna* (gift to gods) lands given to the temple, rent-free. In the course of their deliberations regarding this question the assembly came to some other items of understanding among themselves. The assembled people of Vallanāḍu (one of the five divisions of the present state of Pudukoṭṭa), ‘declared that thenceforward they would afford protection to the cultivators (kuḍimakkaḷ) residing within the four boundaries of the sacred village of Tiruvaraṅguḷam and its dēvadāna village. In the course of their protection if any one of the assembly was found to rob, capture the cows of, or do other mischief to the cultivators, the assembly agreed to assign two mā (one-twentieth of the unit of about six acres) of wet land to the temple by way of fine for the offence committed. Also the seṭṭis, the kaikkoḷars, dancing girls (temple-servants would be better for dēvaraḍiyār), smiths, shepherds, and others inhabiting this sacred village who had acquired lands wet or dry from the assembly (nāḍu) were allowed to enjoy them on permanent lease and pay their dues direct to the temple.’ This certainly means the placing of the charities to the temple, and its full appurtenances, under the protection of the particular community; but as to how far it can be held to indicate slackening of the central authority, it would be hazardous to venture an opinion, unless we could be certain what exactly was the distribution of powers between the central and the local authorities. From what we know of this division of functions, the arrangement described in the document cannot be held to indicate lessening of the central authority. Such agreements seem to have been of frequent occurrence in this part of the country.

c8.s1.16

Having gone into so much detail, we might state in conclusion that Kulottunga handed down to his successor Rājarāja III the central part of the vast empire of the Cholas intact. The forces of disintegration were already visible under the surface, in the sullen discontent of the Pāṇḍyas in the south, the aggressive ambition of the neighbouring powers in the north and the smothered restiveness of the ambitious chieftains within.

First 68 of 121 passages. Read on

Linked texts (6)