South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c8.49

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.