South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c8.s1: Kulottunga, Builder of the Śiva Temple at Tribhuvanam
South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c8.s1
- Language
- English
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.
c8.s1.17
The last condition is indicated by the transfer of an officer from the Pāṇḍya country to the Toṇḍamaṇḍalam (the two Arcots and Chingleput) against some traitors (*rājadrohins*).¹
c8.s1.18
¹ Ep. Coll. 120 of 1912 and Ep. Rep. 1913, p. 110, Sec. 40.
c8.s1.19
There were powerful rulers of the Kākatiya dynasty in the north, and of the Hoysala dynasty in the north-west. These latter, however, were related by blood and were as yet within their own borders, showing no visible signs of inclination to expansion on this side.
c8.s1.20
*Rājarāja III*.—Rājarāja III (with titles Rājakēsari and Parakēsari-varman) ascended the throne nominally in the year A.D. 1216, but actually perhaps two years later as we have records of Kulottunga’s fortieth year. The date of his accession is put beyond doubt by No. 268 of 1910 which equates his twenty-sixth year with Śaka 1165. The Hoysala Vīra Baḷḷāḷa II died in A.D. 1220, and his son Vīra Narasimha II’s accession took place in A.D. 1218. The enterprising Pāṇḍya ruler of the time, Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I ascended the throne of his father in A.D. 1216. During the first few years of Rājarāja III everything seems to have gone on smoothly, and the records of these years give one the impression that he became ruler to a quiet patrimony which required no extraordinary ability to maintain unimpaired. Appearances are often, if not always, deceptive. The Pāṇḍya contemporary was a young aspiring ruler, and Kulottunga’s treatment of his predecessor was apparently rankling in his breast. Revenge was not possible under Kulottunga himself. Why not under his successor? Inscriptions of the ninth year of Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I claim for him various achievements, among them the burning of Tanjore and Uraiyūr. He brought a victorious campaign to a close by driving the Chola out of his patrimony, and anointing himself in the hall at Muḍikoṇḍaśoḷapuram. That was not all. He marched into Chidambaram and had his anointment as a hero-victor in the great temple there. More than this, he exhibited his magnanimity to the fallen enemy by returning him his kingdom on terms. This gives a clear indication where the danger to the Choḷa Empire lay. There is one other particular in this Pāṇḍya record of Māravarman Sundara I’s nineteenth year (A.D. 1225), which throws light upon contemporary history. The two rulers of Kongu came to the Pāṇḍya for the settlement of a dispute. He took them to Madura, gave them apparently a satisfactory award and sent them back. This was perhaps responsible for bringing down Vīra Narasimha II into the Choḷa country for the first time. Records of the Hoysalas show that Narasimha II’s intervention in the affairs of the Choḷa-kingdom had been called for, and we find that this intervention took place in the region round Śrīrangam between the years A.D. 1222 and 1225-6.¹
c8.s1.21
¹ Epig. Indica, vii. p. 160 ff.
c8.s1.22
Rājarāja’s Reign.—Before proceeding to reconstruct the story of this intervention and how it came about, it will be just as well to pass in review some few details of recent discovery regarding the earlier years of Rājarāja III. A record of his fourth year (A.D. 1220) in Muniyūr states that the earlier grants to the temple in the place were re-engraved on stone either because they had decayed by age or new works were undertaken. This was a common practice of the Choḷa sovereigns, and the particular instance would indicate the prevalence of peace and order. In the seventh year the king ratified the action of a woman who collected subscriptions and provided an image of the goddess for the ‘bed-room’ (Paḷḷiyarai) of the temple at Tirumaṇanjēri.²
c8.s1.23
² Ep. Coll. 28 of 1914.
c8.s1.24
In the same year the king sanctioned the removal of Tiruvorriyūr and dependent villages from the register of tax-paying villages. Tiruvorriyūr and the villages included in the group (*dēvadānamaṇḍalam*) had gradually been transformed into temple lands (*dēvadāna*). The point was raised whether the taxes should be paid into the royal treasury or the temple treasury. The matter had to be brought to the notice of the king who declared that these villages ought to be treated as *niṅgal* (i.e. villages which ought to be removed from the state-register of tax-paying lands). Accordingly, some *puravuvari* (taxes) which had been uncollected for a time, viz. *veṭṭi*, *puḍavai-mudal*, *tiraikkāśu*, *āśuvigal-kāśu*, *kuḍi-kāśu*, fee levied on *uvachchars* (drummers) and on looms, *inavari-kāśu*, *kāttigai-kāśu*, *vēlichchinnam*, *veṭṭi-kāśu* and *śiru-pāḍikkāval* on lands growing gingelly and cotton, grain for supervision (*kaṇkāṇi*), *kuṟṟa-daṇḍam*, *paṭṭi-daṇḍam*, *kārtigai-kāśu* on oilmongers, fee on dyes and *ariśi-kāśu* on salt-pans were collected.¹ This order was issued through the royal officer Vīra-Narasimhadēva Yādavarāyan, Governor of Puḷarkkōṭṭam, otherwise Vikrama-śōḷavaḷanāḍu formerly known Rājēndra-śōḷavaḷanāḍu. It looks as though these taxes were held in abeyance because of the dispute as to the party to whom payment had to be made; but whether it would have made any change if the king's order were otherwise is more than can be stated from the record as it is available to us at present.²
c8.s1.25
¹ The exact significance of several of the taxes is not clear. A mere translation would be useless even were it possible.
c8.s1.26
² Ep. Coll. 199 of 1912, section 42 of Ep. Rep. for 1913.
c8.s1.27
A record of his fourteenth year, A.D. 1230 (at Valivalam near Tiruvālūr, Tanjore District) states that at the *dēvadāna* village of Kuḷottungaśōḷanallūr the lands of certain traitors (*rājadrohins*) were put up for sale by public auction (*Rājarāja-peruvilai*) and were sold for 33,000 *kāśu*.³ This may be held to indicate weakening of the central authority, the civil disorder being perhaps the result of hostile movement by enemies of the empire.
c8.s1.28
³ Ep. Coll. 112 of 1911 and Rep. for 1911, section 30.
c8.s1.29
Like their predecessor Kulottunga III, Rājarāja and his successor Rājendra III were Śaivas by conviction, and often exhibited their personal devotion to their religious persuasion in many ways. Notwithstanding the attempt at the destruction of some of the Śaiva monasteries in the twenty-second year of ‘Periyadēvar’ Kulottunga already adverted to, four of these non-Brahman Śaiva maṭhas received considerable patronage under Rājarāja and his successor. The Śaiva teacher Īśānadēva of the lineage of the Māligaimaḍam at Tiruviḍaimarudūr near Kumbhakonam, settled at the time at Nālūr, received a gift of land from a lady disciple who made the gift in carrying out the wishes of her husband at his death.¹ The Tirugñāna Sambandha-maḍam on the south-side of Tiruvagattīśvaram Uḍaiyar temple at Muniyūr in the Tanjore district is referred to in another epigraph.² A third establishment of the kind is the Tirumurai Tēvārachchelvan Maḍam at Tirukkaḷumalam (Shiyāḷi) and comes in for a grant from the inhabitants of Muniyūr.³ The fourth institution was the Tavapperumāḷ Tirumaḍam in the first circuit round the temple (Tirumaḍaivalāgam) of Manattuḷ Nāyanār at Valivalam again in the Tanjore district. This was presided over by Somanāthadēva Mudaliar with the sacerdotal title Ediroppilādar (the unparalleled holy one) of the lineage of Tiruch-chattimuttam.⁴ There are two records of Rājendra registering gifts to this institution, according to one of which the lessees agreed to pay all the taxes due on the lands themselves, and made this condition also applicable ‘to those who purchased the land from them, to those who acquired them as strīdana (woman's property), and to those who inherited them by other means.'
c8.s1.30
¹ Ep. Coll. 49 of 1911.
c8.s1.31
² Ep. Coll. 156 of 1911.
c8.s1.32
³ Ep. Coll. 158 of 1911.
c8.s1.33
⁴ Ep. Rep. 1909, section 53, p. 103; Ep. Coll. 108 and 109 of 1911.
c8.s1.34
In the nineteenth year (A.D. 1235) ¹ we find Rājarāja III paying a visit to the Tiruvorriyūr temple on the occasion of the Āvaṇittiruṇāḷ (festival in August or September, each year). He was present at the musical rendering of the Ahamārgam.² This is apparently the singing, to the accompaniment of dancing, to exhibit the erotic sentiments embodied in the devotional works of the Śaiva saints. Some of these personal acts of the king would indicate that he had a reign of comparative peace, when he could take himself away from the more responsible duties of his high station. The apparent calm was but the precursor of the storm that was gathering from the hostility of the Pāṇḍyas on the south, the ambitions of the chief feudatories within, and the aggressions of his neighbours in the north. It is as against all this, and perhaps in an honest effort to help the Chola, that the Hoysala intervention took place.
c8.s1.35
¹ Ep. Coll. 211 of 1912.
c8.s1.36
² There was a class of dancing women devoted to this particular art. They are known as Āḍal-Kuttiyar or Padiyilār, the latter term occurring often in inscriptions. Śilappadhikāram, v., l. 50 commentary thereon.
c8.s1.37
The Political Condition of the Chola Empire.—The Chola empire under Rājarāja III comprised nominally at least both the Chola and Toṇḍa-maṇḍalams, and extended from the southern extremity of the Pudukoṭṭa state to almost as far north as the northern Pennar itself. But this empire at the time at which we have arrived was very much like a house divided against itself. The emperor had under him part of it round the capital, Śrīrangam, Tanjore, and Gaṅgaikoṇḍaśolapuram being perhaps under him. The territory immediately north of it, that is the district of South Arcot, was under one family of chieftains, the most prominent member of which was the Pallava, or Kāḍava, Kopperunjingadēva (Mahārājasimha of the Sanskrit inscriptions). The territory farther north, known generally as Toṇḍamaṇḍalam, but under the Chola empire as Jayangoṇḍa-Śōḷamaṇḍalam, was under the other family of chieftains, claiming to be of Pallava descent also, who called themselves Śambuvarāyans. In this unhappy condition, the territory of the Cholas was alike exposed to attacks from the south from the rising power of the Pāṇḍyas of Madura, and in the north from the Telugu-Chola chieftains of Nellore and the Kākatīyas beyond. Each one of these sought opportunity for intervention, perhaps as friends of the Chola, but the intervention usually resulted in the appropriation of a part of the empire, or the creation of the chieftaincies whose political interests made them more loyal to the foreigner than to their own liege lord. In this condition of the Chola empire, there came about the Hoysala intervention, which was due to the family relationship between the Cholas and the Hoysalas, and the aggressive activity of the contemporary Pāṇḍyan ruler Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I.
c8.s1.38
*Hoysala Intervention.*—The Hoysalas were a dynasty of feudatories of the great Chāḷukya emperor Vikramāditya, called by historians Vikramāditya VI, and, in literature, Vikramānka Dēva. He was contemporary with the Chola emperor Kulottunga I. His empire marched with that of Kulottunga along the Krishna-Tungabhadra frontier, and from their junction, in a slanting line north-eastwards till it touched the frontiers of Orissa. Vikramāditya therefore had for his territory proper most of the Bombay Presidency south of the Vindhyas, the greater half of the Nizam’s Dominions and the hilly portions at any rate of the Mysore plateau. When Vikramāditya passed away at the commencement of the second quarter of the twelfth century the empire passed into the hands of feeble successors. When two more rulers followed, the empire had become so weak, and the more powerful feudatories had grown so powerful, that a usurpation under Bijjala came in, which preserved the empire intact for another generation. A usurpation is never a stable cure for keeping the disorderly elements in an empire permanently in hand. When the powerful usurper Bijjala passed away, the greater feudatories on the distant frontiers from the head-quarters were quite ready to throw off the yoke of imperial authority. The semblance of empire was however kept up while each frontier chieftain did his best to make his power more real and his territory more compact. When the last emperor passed out of existence, the frontier chieftains openly threw off the imperial yoke and made themselves independent. Out of this dismembered empire, which in its days held together more than a dozen subordinate governments, there stood out in the last decade of the twelfth century three dynasties possessing compact states, and, in touch with each other on the frontiers warring incessantly for supremacy. The southern block of territory which belonged to this Chālukya empire was somewhat extended at the expense of the Cholas since the death of Kulottunga I, and this formed the territory of the Hoysalas, who, in the early stages of the imperial career of Vikramāditya, were the pillars of his empire. The territory of the Hoysalas was separated from that of the Yādavas of Dēvagiri, by the river Krishna in its upper course, and a somewhat uncertain line beginning from somewhere opposite to Adoni and going north along almost the middle of the present day Nizam's Dominions, separated the territory of the Yādavas from that of the Kākatīyas, a new dynasty that had sprung into importance from the ashes of the eastern Chālukyas. The southern power of the Hoysalas it was that kept itself in touch with the Cholas, and, when the Chola empire got into a helpless condition under Rājarāja III intervened effectively, and, for a time, restored Rājarāja to his former position.
c8.s1.39
The real founder of the Hoysala power was Biṭṭi Dēva or Viṣṇuvardhana. His grandson Vīra Baḷḷāḷa however extended the territory permanently to the frontier of the Krishna and incorporated within it the eastern and north-eastern parts of Mysore. It was in the middle of his reign, in the year A.D. 1193, when the imperial power had become extinct, that he declared himself independent. He continued to reign till A.D. 1220, just four years after the commencement of the reign of Rājarāja III. In that year he was succeeded by his son Narasimha or Vīra Narasimha, the second of the name in this dynasty whose reign extended down to A.D. 1235. In the first years of Narasimha’s reign his intervention in the affairs of the Chola empire was called for.
c8.s1.40
We have already pointed out that the last great Chola Kulottunga III ruled from A.D. 1178 to A.D. 1216. He was succeeded by Rājarāja III. The great war against the Ceylonese took place early in the life of Kulottunga III. When these foreigners were driven out of India, the civil war continued in the Pāṇḍya country. The Cholas upheld the claims of Kulaśēkhara Pāṇḍya and so long as Kulottunga lived Kulaśēkhara’s successful rival found it impossible to retaliate upon the Chola. When Kulottunga died and was succeeded by Rājarāja, the Pāṇḍyas found the opportunity. About the same year as the accession of Rājarāja III there came to the Pāṇḍya throne a Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya. In some of the records of his ninth year he claims to have burnt down Tanjore and Uraiyūr, probably as the result of a Pāṇḍya invasion from the south. It is this invasion from the south that called for the active intervention of Hoysala Narasimha. He placed himself between the Pāṇḍya and Chola capitals, in the region round Śrīrangam, and for the time deterred the Pāṇḍya from advancing further. It was possibly then that Tammusidhi advanced upon Kāñchi.¹
c8.s1.41
¹ For details see the next lecture.
c8.s1.42
This move diverted Narasimha’s attention, and the Pāṇḍya carried his conquests so far as to turn the Chola a fugitive from his capital and have himself anointed at Muḍikoṇḍaśolapuram, and as hero-victor at Chidambaram in obvious retaliation of the performance of Kulottunga III in Madura. These events must have taken place before the nineteenth year of Māravarman Sundara I (A.D. 1235).
c8.s1.43
During the reign of Kulottunga a family of Telugu chieftains had raised themselves to importance in the region round Nellore, which was otherwise known as Vikramasimhapura. They took advantage of suitable occasions to extend their power southwards and at one time they seem to have advanced as far as Kāñchi on their own account, and when at last they were reduced to subjection by the Kākatīyas farther north. these latter essayed to keep their hold upon the northern part of the Chola dominions. In this state of affairs across the frontiers the subordinate chiefs of the Chola empire themselves proved troublesome; for, about the year A.D. 1331, the chief of Śendamangalam, Kopperunjinga, who called himself a Kāḍava, and also gave himself titles like Avaniyāḷappirandan (he that was born to rule the world) attacked Rājarāja III and kept him prisoner. Rājarāja was related to the Hoysala monarch, Narasimha II, who, on hearing the news of his captivity at Śendamangalam started from Dvārasamudra, seized the Magara kingdom on his way, and marched upon Kāñchi. As there appears to have been a Yādava invasion on his northern frontier, he sent in advance to the relief of Rājarāja the Chola, two generals of his by name Appaṇa and Samudra Gopaiya. These generals carried the war successfully against the Kāḍava chieftain to Śendamangalam marching northwards from the region of Chidambaram. In the course of these campaigns they killed four Ceylon generals, among whom was Parākrama Bāhu ‘the king of Ceylon’ (probably a prince), compelled Kopperunjinga to release the Chola monarch, from Śendamaṅgalam and restored Rājarāja to his position in the empire. Thus the first intervention against Māravarman Sundara I was at least temporarily effective, as it actually saved the empire from immediate destruction. The Pāṇḍya menace still continued real, and Kopperuñjinga prudently allied himself with the Pāṇḍya against the Chola and the Hoysala.
c8.s1.44
Narasimha was succeeded in the year 1233 by his son Sōmēśvara, who apparently was associated with his father in the government of the kingdom and took an active part in the Hoysala intervention in the South. There are very few records of his in the south between the years five and twenty-one of his reign. About A.D. 1244 there seems to have been some disturbance in the Chola empire, apparently a civil war between the reigning ruler Rājarāja and his brother, who afterwards become Rājēndra III. Exactly ten years after his father’s intervention, the son Sōmēśvara found it necessary to interfere. He completely defeated Rājēndra Chola on the field of battle; but seems to have restored him afterwards to his position.¹ While therefore Narasimha’s intervention was on behalf of his relative Rājarāja, the intervention of Vīra Sōmēśvara on the other hand, seems to have been first against Rājēndra, and ostensibly in favour of Rājarāja III, ending ultimately in favour of Rājēndra himself. Rājēndra’s inscriptions exhibit him as a hostile rod of death to the Kannaḍiga king, the ‘hero anklets’ of whose feet were put on by the hands of Vīra Sōmēśvara.² The explanation of these apparently contradictory statements seems to be that Sōmēśvara’s intervention was first in favour of Rājarāja, and either because of his death, or something else that happened, he entered into a treaty with his successor Rājēndra. Thereafter Somēśvara did not leave the country of the Cholas, but established himself there with a capital built by himself at Kaṇṇanūr about five miles north of Śrīrangam, where he appears to have resided till his death about A.D. 1262, except for a short period in A.D. 1252 when he was in Dvārasamudra. Both Narasimha the father and Somēśvara the son assumed the title ‘Chola-Rājya-Pratiṣṭāpanāchārya,’ meaning thereby that both of them established the Chola in his position.
c8.s1.45
¹ Ep. Car. v. Ak. 123.
c8.s1.46
² No. 64 of 1892 and No. 420 of 1911. Also sec. 32 Ep. Rep. for 1912.