South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c9: Lecture II. South India in the Thirteenth Century
South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c9
- Language
- English
Contents
- c9.s1 The Rival Brothers—Sundara Pandya and Vira Pandya — 2 parts
- c9.s2 The Disintegration of the Chola Empire—Its Causes — 22 parts
Lecture II. South India in the Thirteenth Century
c9.2
The *Revival of Pāṇḍyan Greatness*.—We have already stated in the previous lecture that the power of the Pāṇḍyas suffered considerable eclipse in the civil war which brought on the intervention of both the king of Ceylon and the reigning Chola Rājādhirāja II and his heir-apparent, who became after him Kulottunga III. It is clear that the position of the Ceylonese as the arbiters of the destinies of the Pāṇḍya kingdom was made impossible by the active intervention of the Chola prince Kulottunga and the Chola feudatory Pallavarāyar. The campaign was continued so successfully by these latter that in the eleventh year of his reign, Rājādhirāja called himself conqueror of Īḷam and Madura. It seems to be that the war continued into the reign of Kulottunga III, as inscriptions of Kulottunga III describe him as ‘having taken Madurai (Madura), Īḷam (Ceylon), Karuvūr (Karur) and the crowned head of the Pāṇḍya’ and being pleased ‘to perform the anointment of heroes and the anointment of victors at Madura.’¹ This achievement was regarded as of such consequence that a grant of tax was made to a temple in the Puḍukoṭṭa State for the merit of the king during his stay at Madura,² and memory of this seems to be preserved in the name of the South-Western parts of Puḍukoṭṭa, Kaḍalaḍayāḍilangai koṇḍa Vaḷanāḍu (the division of him that took Ceylon without building a dam across the sea). This division was otherwise known Virudarājabhayankaravaḷanāḍu. Kulottunga III’s achievement therefore amounts to a reassertion of the authority of the Cholas over the Pāṇḍya country. All the same during the period of his reign there were a number of Pāṇḍyas ruling simultaneously, among whom at least one name stands prominent; that of Jaṭāvarman Kulaśekhara I, whose reign extended from A.D. 1190 to A.D. 1216, the last year of Kulottunga III himself. It is just possible that this Kulaśekhara was the son of Vikrama and grandson of the Kulaśekhara whose cause the Cholas supported in the war of succession.
c9.3
¹ Ep. Rep. for 1915, Sec. 27.
c9.4
² Ep. Coll. No. 339 of 1914.
c9.5
Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I.—The succeeding Pāṇḍyan, Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, whose reign began in 1216 and continued to 1239, and his successor Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya II, whose reign commenced in A.D. 1238 and lasted on to A.D. 1255, take up the period of rule of Kulottunga III’s successors Rājarāja III and Rājendra III and of the life time of the Hoysala Vīra Somēśvara who ruled from Kaṇṇanūr, near Śrīrangam, the whole of the Hoysala empire.¹ During this period, the Pāṇḍyas recovered much of their lost power and prestige. Māravarman Sundara I seems to have carried on a successful invasion of the Chola territory capturing the country round Tanjore and Uraiyūr. He claims to have defeated the Cholas taken their country and made ‘a present of it’ again. He then proceeded to Chidambaram, and after worshipping God Naṭarāja there, performed the anointment of heroes at Muḍikoṇḍaśolapuram.² So much is clearly stated in an inscription from Tirukkōḷūr in the Tinnevelly district where this Sundara Pāṇḍya is said to have lowered ‘the tiger and the bow flag’, burnt down Tanjore and Uraiyūr and having turned out the Chola into the forest, anointed himself in the ‘thousand-pillared hall’, of the Cholas. He then proceeded further north putting an end to the other kings, till he reached Chidambaram, when the Chola came with his wives and children begging for his protection. On his submission, the Pāṇḍya bestowed upon the Chola his crown. Then there came to him the ruler of the north and south Kongus with whom he returned to Madura. He settled the boundary dispute between them and sent them back contented. The ungrateful Chola now undertook an invasion against the Pāṇḍya. Defeating the army of the Cholas and killing their chief, he again performed the anointment of heroes at Muḍikoṇḍaśolapuram. This is a free translation of the preamble of the inscription of the year 20 of Māravarma Sundara Pāṇḍya ¹ published in the *Sen-Tamil*, volume xii, pages 346 to 350. This date would correspond to the year A.D. 1236–37.
c9.6
¹ Kielhorn's list of Pāṇḍya kings. Ep. Indica, ix. pp. 226-8.
c9.7
² Ep. Rep. for 1915, Sec. 32. This Muḍikoṇḍaśolapuram seems apparently another name for Gaṅgaikoṇḍaśolapuram, as Muḍikoṇḍa and Gaṅgaikoṇḍa are titles of Rājendra I; Ep. Rep. sec. 24 of 1910 and 200 of 1912. Rājendra I issued the orders conveyed in the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates from his palace at Muḍikoṇḍaśolapuram. This fact may be held to be conclusive in regard to the identity.
c9.8
¹ Ep. Rep. for 1912, 520 of App. B, Sec. 32 of Rep. See appendix below for the record and its translation.
c9.9
South entrance, Bṛhadiśvara temple Gaṅgakoṇḍaśolapuram
c9.10
South-east view of bastion : Siva temple, Gangaikondaśolapuram
c9.11
This claim is well attested by the existence of his inscriptions in the Trichinopoly and the Tanjore districts and in the Pudukoṭṭa State, in addition to Madura and Tinnevelly. He also assumed the title Śoṇāḍu-Vaḷangiyaruḷiya (who was graciously pleased to present the Chola country).
c9.12
*Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya II*.—His successor of the name who ruled from A.D. 1238 to 1255 does not appear to have done much. There are a few records of his however, which give us an interesting insight into the political condition of the Chola country. A record of his fourteenth year refers to the construction of a temple by a person called Tirupuḷḷāṇi Dāsar at Kiḷachevval ² for which the required land was given by a lady Pammiyakkan. The name sounds Kanarese, and the lady that bore the name may have been a member of the Hoysala family, which had entered into marriage relations with the Cholas and the Pāṇḍyas. One of the queens of Vīra Ballāḷa II went by the name Chola Mahādēvi as was already stated. It seems likely that Rājarāja had married either a sister or a daughter of Ballāḷa’s son Narasimha who first intervened in the affairs of the Chola country. Hoysala Somēśvara is referred to in a record of Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya as Māmiḍi, meaning uncle.¹ At the request of this uncle, Māravarman Sundara made a grant of the village to a Brahman, and called the village Vīra Somi Chatur-vēdimangalam after the name of the uncle. This fact is found recorded in a grant of the eleventh year of Sundara Pāṇḍya, which would correspond to A.D. 1250. Apart from these references we find a general of the Hoysala king by name Appana Daṇḍanāyaka settling disputes at Tirumeyyam in the Pudukoṭṭa State,² a clear indication of the grip that Vīra Somēśvara had over the Chola country proper extending down to the frontier of the Pāṇḍyas.
c9.13
² Ep. Rep. for 1912, Sec. 34 ; also Nos. 522–5 of 1911.
c9.14
¹ No. 156 of 1894 at Murappu-Nāḍu (Tinnevelly District); also Ep. Rp. 1912, Sec. 34.
c9.15
² No. 387 of 1906. Ep. Rep., Sec. 47 of 1901 and Sec. 26 of 1907.
c9.16
Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I.—It was in this state of political affairs in the Chola kingdom that there came to the Pāṇḍya throne a ruler, apparently one among a number, 3, 4, or 5, according to the particular period under reference, who claims to have reduced the whole of the Chola Empire to subjection under him; and this was Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, whose accession is dated in the year A.D. 1251, and whose rule perhaps lasted on to his twenty-third or twenty-fourth regnal year. He assumed the title ‘who took all countries’. There are numbers of his records all through the Chola country up to Nellore,³ which clearly indicate the extension of his authority all through this region. His inscriptions, such as they are, recite all his great deeds, but do not give us exactly to understand the order of occurrence of various of his achievements. As recorded in these inscriptions he entered the Malaya country (Malabar), defeated and destroyed the army of the Chera, killing the latter in battle.¹ He then put another ruler on the throne, possibly a counter claimant, or a member of the royal family. He then entered the Chola country apparently by way of Pudukoṭṭa. He placed the Chola under tribute and marched against the Hoysala. He destroyed the army of the Hoysala killing several of his generals, among whom was Śingaṇa Daṇḍanāyaka given over to an elephant.² He did not pursue the Hoysala who was then in full flight. He, however, ordered the death of the Chēra who played the traitor by pretending to be his ally while working in the interest of his enemies.³ He then attacked Kaṇṇanūr-koppam, the capital of the Hoysalas in the Chola country, and brought the Chola country as much under his authority as the Pāṇḍya country itself was before. He then levied tribute of elephants upon the Hoysala who had retired behind the first line of his outposts in the Tamil country.⁴ It was apparently at this time that he mastered possession of Magadai country (the Āttūr division of the Salem district) and the neighbouring parts of South Arcot, and further west of this the Kongu country. It was then that he received tribute in jewels and elephants sent by the ruler of Ceylon. Apparently Vīra Pāṇḍya his co-regent, who claims the conquest of Ceylon, sent from the king the tribute.¹ Without accepting the tribute sent by the Pallava Chief, Sundara Pāṇḍya marched upon Śendamangalam the citadel of Kopperunjinga (Kāṭakadurgam of the Sanskrit records) and laid siege to it. He took the fortress and bestowed it again upon the Pallava.² He then visited Chidambaram where he paid his worship at the shrine of Naṭarāja, covered the roofing with gold and anointed himself ruler of the Pāṇḍya and Chola kingdoms, after performing a tulābhāra ceremony (weighment, against gold and pearls).³
c9.17
³ Ep. Rep. of 1911, Sec. 40.
c9.18
¹ See appendix, ll, 21-22 also மீளாவழிச் செல்லவேணடர் தங்களை வென்றதந் தோளான் மதுரைமன் சுந்தரபாண்டியன் சூழ்ந்திரைஞ்சி யாளான மன்னவர்தன் னேவல்செய்ய வவனிமுட்ட வாளால் வழிதிறந்தான் வடவேந்தரை மார்திறந்தே. Ins. on the North Wall of the East Gopura at Chidambaram. Śen-Tamil, iv. 492.
c9.19
² Ājau Simhaṇamunmadasya kariṇōdatvāparāgamtatō, Dṛiṣtvā Rāmamahīpatēḥ praśamitakṣēmābhiṣangōbhuvaḥ. Śrīrangam Pillar Ins. Śen-Tamil iv. 496.
c9.20
³ Appendix quoted above, ll. 38-9.
c9.21
⁴ Ibid. ll. 40-45.
c9.22
¹ Appendix quoted above, ll. 42-44.
c9.23
² Ibid. ll. 50-55.
c9.24
³ Ibid. ll. 55-65; also
c9.25
Then he went to Śrīrangam and after making some of his benefactions had himself crowned in the temple with the crown Nagarōdaya.⁴ He then marched further north; turned the Bāṇas into the forests and came into occupation
c9.26
⁴ The Tamil Praśasti in the appendix; ll. 78-80. The record is probably in the temple at Śrīrangam.
c9.27
கொங்க ருடல்கிழியக் குத்தியிரு கோட்டெடுத்து
வெங்க ணழலில் வெதுப்புமே—மங்கையர்கண்
சூழத்தா மம்புனையுஞ் சுந்தரத்தோள் மீனவனு
கீழத்தானிட்ட இறை.
c9.28
Chidambaram Ins. East Gate, south side. Śen Tamil, iv. 493.
c9.29
இனவஸ்ரீ கிம்புரிவெண் பிறைக்கோட்டி கல்வெங் கடுங்கட்
சினமத்த வெங்கரிச் சுந்தரத் தென்னவன் றில்ஹலமன்றில்
வனசத் திருவுடன் செஞ்சொற்றிருவை மணந்த தொக்கும்
கனகத் துலையுடன் முத்துத் துலை(யுங்) கலந்ததுவே.
c9.30
Śen Tamil, iv. 491. Rājasūryassamāruhyattulāḥ kanaka mauktikaiḥ. Ibid. 495. Ins. at Chidambaram.
c9.31
Tulābhāra Ceremony, sculptural representation, Mahāmakham Tank, Kumbakonam (by permission of the Archaeological Department, Madras)
c9.32
of Kāñchi having killed Gaṇḍagopāla in battle.¹ When his brothers threw themselves upon his mercy, he restored the kingdom to them. He then continued his advance apparently inflicting a terrible defeat upon the Telungas and their allies the Āriyas at Mudugūr, and drove them up to the Pērāru (Krishna).² It is in this state of his campaign that he is described as a tiger to the antelope, Gaṇapati, a kūṭapākala fever to the elephant Kāṭaka, the slayer of Gaṇḍagopāla, etc. The reference to the Āriyas seems to be to the Yādavas of Dēvagiri. If the Rāma Mahīpati³ in one of the Śrīrangam epigraphs could be held to refer to Rāmacandra or Rāmadēva, the Āriyas would undoubtedly be the Maharattas. Such an inference seems warranted as the Āriyas are referred to in close association with the Hoysalas in all the three references to them we have.⁴ The only other possibility seems to be that this Rāma Mahīpati was the Chēra ruler who was put to death for treacherous conduct as an ally. The Kākatīya king Gaṇapati, must have died some time before this if the order adopted above is correct (on this point see the Tiruppuṭkuli¹ Ins.) though there is the possibility that the Hoysala Somēśvara was killed in a campaign on Sundara Pāṇḍya’s return journey, a contingency which seems very highly probable as the Hoysala monarch is definitely stated to have fled when Kaṇṇanūr fell, and Sundara held it unwarlike to press on a flying enemy and fight with him again. The Kāṭaka apparently has nothing to do with Kaṭak in Orissa as a record of Sundara’s co-regent Bhuvanēkavīra Vikrama Pāṇḍya states explicitly that he did not go upon his campaign farther north, as he ceased to be angry because of the two fishes, the eyes of Gaṇapati, and since he heard that the ruler there was a woman.² This is decisively against any assumption of his war having reached farther north than the Krishna.
c9.33
¹ வாக்கியல் செந்தமிழ்ச் சுந்தரபாண்டியன் வாளமரில் வீக்கிய வன்கழற் கண்டகோபாலவண் விண்ணுலகிற் போக்கிய பின்னவன்றம்பியர் போற்றப்புரந் தரசி லாக்கிய வார்த்தை பதினாலுகமு மானதுவே. Chid. Ins. East Gate, south side, vii. 3. Śen Tamil, iv. 493.
c9.34
² Ep. Rep. 1914, sec. 18.
c9.35
³ See note on p. 63; also, காரேற்ற தண்டலைக்கா விரிநாடனைக் கானுலவுந் தேரேற்றி விட்டசெழுந் தமிழ்த்தென்னவன் சென்றெதிர்ந்து தாரேற்ற வெம்படையா ரியந்தண்டு படத்தனியே போரேற்றுகின்ற பெருவார்த்தை யின்னும்புது வார்த்தையே. Chidambaram East Gate, north side. Śen Tamil, iv. 491.
c9.36
⁴ A certain class of local chiefs in Pudukoṭṭa and the neighbourhood called themselves Araiyars. It does not seem likely these are under reference here as the Tamil word used in the verse is ‘Āriyam.’
c9.37
¹ Jitvā Kēraḷamudgamayya Magadān nirjitya Laṅkādipa(m)’s Chitvā, Kṣhēmimudasya Hoysalapatim Vidrāvya Chōḷēśvaram, Bhaṅktva Kāṭakadurgam Āndranṛpatim hatvādhirūḍastulām, Kāñchyām Sundara Pāṇḍya bhūbhṛdaśisha (t) Vīrābhishiktō mahīm. Tiruppuṭkuli Ep. Śen-Tamiḷ iv. 513.
c9.38
² Chidambaram ix. Śen Tamiḷ, iv. 493-94. புயலுந்தருவும் பொருகைப் பு[வ]நேக வீரபுனல் வயலுந்தரளந் தருகொற் கைகா வலவாரணப்போர் முயலுங்கணபதி மொய்த்தசெஞ் சோதிமுகத் திரண்டு கயலுண் டெனுமது வோமுனிவாறிய காரணமே.
c9.39
வெங்கண் மதயானை விக்கிரம பாண்டியனே பொங்கி வடதிசையிற் போகாதே—யங்கிருப்பாள் பெண்ணென்று மீண்ட பெருமாளே பேரிசையாழ்ப் பண்ணொன்றுஞ் வேய்வாய் பகை.
c9.40
Similar sentiments are ascribed to the Yādava King, Mahādēva. Bom. Gazetteer, I. ii. 246. Yastasyaiva raṇē jahāra kariṇastat pancha śabdādikām Yastayāja vadhūvadhā duparatastad bhūbhujām Rudramām. Praśasti, i. 52. Ayam śiśu strī śaraṇāgatānām hantā Mahādēva nṛpōnajātu Ittam viniśchitya tatōzti bhitair Āndhraiḥ purandhrī nihitānṛpatvē. Praś. l. 14. Hēmādri’s Intrd. to Vrata Khaṇḍa. Bhandarkar’s Dekhan. Bom. Gazetteer, I. ii. 273-74.
c9.41
[Figure: Śrīrangam, town and temple from the south (by permission of Messrs. Wiele & Klein, Madras)]
c9.42
In regard to the dating of the campaign, it began apparently soon after Sundara's accession in A.D. 1251. The march from the frontiers of Travancore to the banks of the Krishna with all the campaigning might well have occupied ten years. When he came to the northern end of his progress the Kākatīya Gaṇapati had died and his daughter had just come to the throne in A.D. 1260. After a coronation at Nellore, he set forward upon his return march, and reached Kaṇṇanūr and Śrīrangam in the next two years or so. There was probably another war in which the Hoysala Somēśvara fell, and Sundara entered Śrīrangam and made his great donations to the temple. A record¹ of his fourteenth year (A.D. 1264-65) which he issued from Kaṇṇanūr gives us the limit of date for his campaigns. The Ranganātha inscription of Sundara Pāṇḍya published by Dr. Hultzsch in Vol. III of the *Epigraphia Indica* gives in minute detail all his benefactions to the temple, and hints broadly for the first time of the death of the Hoysala Somēśvara. This death is referred to as a recent event in the first verse of the inscription. ‘Having caused to long for the other world (to set or die) the moon of the Karṇāṭa (country)’.²
c9.43
¹ Ep. Coll. 702 of 1904.
c9.44
² Yēnasau Karuṇāmaniyata daśām Śrīrangapadmākaraḥ, Kritvā tam bhuvānantara praṇayinam Karṇāṭa doṣakaram. See also Ep. Rep., sec. 47 of 1911.
c9.45
The account of his benefactions to this temple which we find recorded in the Tamil work called Koyiloḷuhu seems apparently to be based upon the inscriptions, but adds a few more details. It is hardly necessary to give in detail all the repairs he made, or new structures and extensions that he constructed, which took on the character of extensions of colonnades and halls, providing connecting passages roofed over, and paving the circuits round the main temple. He seems to have added vastly to the thousand-pillared hall, and another hall, in the same yard. It was also he that constructed the various buildings, the Yāgaśāla (building for the celebration of Vedic sacrifices) and those adjoining. But what is of some interest here is that these and various other things such as cars, gold and jewel fittings for the car, jewels of various kinds for the God and Goddess, all these amounted to eighteen lacs of pieces of gold of the current coin. This vast amount he set apart for these various purposes by a peculiar kind of tulābhāra (weighment against gold). He got two boats of the same size and weight constructed, and had them afloat on the river in the bathing ghat which goes by the name Makha (the asterism in the full moon of February-March of each year under which a festival takes place). He probably connected them both, and on one of them placed an elephant seven cubits, ‘of the carpenter’s yard’ high, and himself mounted on it in full panoply of war with all his warlike accoutrement; and on the other put in an equal weight of gold and pearls and gems of all sorts so mixed as to rise to the same height.¹ He then made it over to the temple for these miscellaneous items of expenditure. This magnificent gift had to lie over for two years as the temple authorities, in the name of God, would not accept it for some reason. Ultimately they were persuaded to accept it. His difficulties did not come to an end there. After making all the vast repairs and new constructions he cherished the ambition, natural to persons of the kind in such circumstances, of placing a statue of his and apparently that of his queen Chērakulavalli in some prominent place in the temple. These again the temple authorities would not have, perhaps on the ground that no statue of a human personality, however high, should defile the precincts of the holy temple. The great Pāṇḍya had to content himself with merely making two statues in the form of a god and goddess, but bearing the respective names ‘Ponvēynda Perumāl’ or ‘Hēmāchadanarāja’, the great one that covered the roof with gold, and ‘Chērakulavalli’, as also a large sized statue of Garuḍa the Brahmani kite, ‘the chief vehicle’ (vāhana) of Viṣṇu. These are yet shown in the temple. His munificence however, in spite of the want of a statue of his, is yet green in the memory of people, and the name of Sundara Pāṇḍya is familiar to those that know anything of the temple. His name is handed down in various forms on coins of his; ‘Emmaṇḍalamumgoṇḍaruḷiya’ (the conqueror of all kingdoms), ‘Eḷāmtalaiyānān (he that is first of all), being some. It is apparently this Sundara Pāṇḍya that enjoyed the special distinction of Vāḷālvaḷitirandān (he that opened the way by the sword).¹ He is also given the title Kōdaṇḍarāma, on some of his coins and inscriptions.
c9.46
¹ The elephant feature at any rate is mentioned in the inscription on the pillars in the Mahāmaṇṭapa. Mukuṭachayair vijitya Yadu-Kēraḷa-Chola nṛipāmstadupḥṛtaiḥ bhalāt dviradhirūḍhatulābharitaiḥ Sen Tamil, iv. 512.
c9.47
¹ மீளாவழிச் செல்லவேண்டர் தங்களை வென்றத[ந்] தோளான் மதுரைமன் சுந்தரபாண்டியன் சூழ்ந்திறைஞ்சி யாளான மன்னவர்தன் னேவல்செய்ய வவனிமுட்ட வாளால் வழிதிறந்தான் வடவேந்தரை மார்திறந்தே. Chid : Ins. Śen Tamil, p. 492.
c9.48
Jaṭāvarman Sundara's Co-regents.—Along with this great ruler, we have records of at least two others, it is possible that there were three, who ruled simultaneously. One of them went by the name Vikrama Pāṇḍya ² and the
c9.49
² Chidambaram Ins. ix. Śen Tamil iv. 493. See also Sec. 20 Ep. Rep. for 1914. The first of these Tam. Inss. states that the Podiyil, Hill, the streams flowing down which send out sprays against the rising sun, is the hill of Vikrama Pāṇḍya, conqueror of Vēṇāḍu. This is misunderstood as implying a victory at Podiyil Hill for the Pāṇḍya in the Epigraphist's Report. The error is repeated in Mr. V. Rangachari's index. (Sec. 157 of South Arcot); the verse runs:
c9.50
ஏந்து மருவியிரவி புரவியின் முன்
பூந்து வலைவீசும் பொதியிலே—காந்துசின
வேணடவண வென்ற விக்கிரபாண்டியன் மெய்ப்
பூணரம் பூண்டான் பொருப்பு.
c9.51
other Vīra Pāṇḍya; both of them alike lay claim to conquests against the same enemies as Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I. A record of Vīra Pāṇḍya (acc. A.D. 1253) states clearly that he ‘took Īḷam (Ceylon), Kongu, and the Śoḷamaṇḍalam (the Chola country), and, having conquered the powerful Chola king, was pleased to perform the anointment of heroes and victors at Perumbarrappuliyūr (Chidambaram). He must have come after Māravarman Sundra Pāṇḍya II, as one of his grants refers to Murappunāḍu as Vikrama Sōmi Chaturvēdimangalam, which received this name under Māravarman Sundara II.¹ This circumstance would indicate that in all probability they were not separate rulers, but lieutenants of the empire, who took an active part in the achievements of the chief ruler for the time being.² He is said to have instituted a Sundara Pāṇḍyan Sandi (an offering of food) in 197 of the Epigraphist's collection for 1906. This same record of the fifteenth year of Vīra Pāṇḍya mentions Kopperunjinga. These references would only confirm the conclusion. The actual number of Pāṇḍyas that held sway at a particular time, the relations between them, and in fact the history of the Pāṇḍyas generally of this period require to be worked up a great deal more, before it is possible to arrive at any definite conclusion regarding these matters. There are two more Pāṇḍyas that come in, Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya II and another one of the same name, whose reign began somewhat later.³ Whether these were successors of the two others or whether they were additional rulers, it is not possible to say at present. So much, however, is clear that in this period, extending from about A.D. 1250 to 1275, there were as many as four Pāṇḍya rulers, it may even possibly be five.
c9.52
¹ Ep. Coll. 435 of 1906.
c9.53
² Ep. Rep., Sec. 37 of 1912.
c9.54
³ Ep. Rep. 1912, Sec. 36; Ep. Rep. 1913, Sec. 45.
c9.55
Māravarman Kulaśēkhara.—The next great Pāṇḍya whose history is of sufficient importance to be dealt with is the last great one among them called Māravarman Kulaśēkhara I, whose accession took place in A.D. 1268 according to the late Professor Kielhorn, and of whose forty-fourth year¹ we have a record or two. His reign therefore would extend from A.D. 1268 to 1311 almost. This long reign was one of comparative peace and uniform prosperity, if the statements of Marco Polo and the Muhammadan historians are to be given full credit. This ruler is apparently the ‘Khales Dewar’ of the Muhammadan historians, and the ‘Asciar’ or ‘Ashar’ of Marco Polo. Of Khales Dewar, Wassaf says that he ‘had ruled for forty years in prosperity and had accumulated in the treasury of Shahr-Mandi² 1200 crores in gold.’ In his days, Kāyal a port of the Pāṇḍya country was in a very prosperous condition, and Marco Polo says of him that he was ‘the eldest of the five brother kings.’ Of Kāyal he says: ‘it is at this city that all the ships touch that come from the west, from Hormos³ and from Kis⁴ and from Aden, and all Arabia, laden with horses and with other things for sale. And this brings a great concourse of people from the country round about, and so there is great business done in this city of Cail.’⁵ Reverting to his account of the king he continues ‘the king possesses vast treasures, and wears upon his person great store of rich jewel. He maintains great state and administers his kingdom with great equity, and extends great favour to merchants and foreigners, so that they were very glad to visit his city.’ According to a grant of this Kulaśēkhara he is described as in residence at his palace located ‘in a grove south of the town of Jayangonda-Śolapuram' and the royal seat in the palace is called Kālingarāyan. This Māravarman Kulaśēkhara is also known by the other title Konērinmaikondān (the king who had no equal). His records are generally without introduction, although the Ālvār Tirunagari record,¹ has one which recounts his achievements. The fact that the name of the officer Kālingarāyan figures in this document and in various others of a king Māravarman Kulaśēkhara goes to prove the identity of the ruler referred to. In one document of his seventeenth year, which would correspond to A.D. 1285, the king is said to have been in residence at Gangaikonda-pattanam.² He is represented in the one grant with introduction as ruling over both the Chola and the Pāndya countries. Of this particular period it can almost correctly be said that there were five Pāndyas³ at the time, as Marco Polo says.
c9.56
¹ No. 106 of 1916. Ep. Rep. 1916, Sec. 30.
c9.57
² Shahr Pāṇḍi, the city of Pāṇḍya, Elliott III, p. 52.
c9.58
³ Not Myos Hormos—Mussel Harbour a port of the Ptolemies in the Red Sea. 27-12 N. and 33-13 E, but Ormuz in the Persian Gulf—Urimanjī of S. Indian writers.
c9.59
⁴ Kis or Kais, an island in the Persian Gulf, the chief of which Maliku-l Islam Jamal-ud-din was the chief horse trader with the Pāṇḍya.
c9.60
⁵ Marco Polo Edn. by Yule and Cordier II, p. 370.
c9.61
¹ No. 465 B. of 1910. Sen Tamil, vol. ix, p. 357 vide Appendix for Text and Translation of part of the record.
c9.62
² 71. C. of 1916. It is not certain whether this is the same as Gangaikondaśolapuram. The fact that the king is said to have been in residence at his palace at Jayangondaśolapuram, and the change in the name taken together might be interpreted to mean that the capital had been changed on account of the city having become over-crowded for the habitual residence of the ruler.
c9.63
³ Ind. Antiq, vol. xlii. On some new dates of Pāndya kings by Mr, L.D.S. Sec. iii.
c9.64
But there is one point worth remarking in Marco Polo's account, and that is that the port of Kāyal was under 'Asciar' of Marsden, Ashar of Yule, in both cases alike a modification of Śēkharar, omitting the first part of the word, Kulaśēkhara. He is also described as ruling from Madura, and we have already noticed above he had his royal residence in Jayangonda-Śolapuram. These taken in combination would warrant the inference that he was the principal monarch, the eldest of the five brothers, as some of our authorities mention, while there were other Pāndyas, members of the royal family, and, perhaps related even as brothers in a number of cases, subordinate to his authority, though liable to be referred to as rulers of their respective territory by foreigners visiting their shores.
c9.65
It is this Kulaśēkhara that is referred to in chapter 90 of the Mahāvaṁśa of Ceylon.¹ In recording the history of Parākrama Bāhu III, who ruled from A.D. 1288 to 1293 according to this authority, there is a reference made to a famine in Ceylon and to an invasion of the island by the Tamils. It is just in the years immediately preceding, that the predecessor of this Parākrama Bāhu, by name Bhuvanēka Bāhu, drove away from Ceylon ‘all his Tamil foes, as Kāḷinga Rāyar, Choḍaganga, and the others who had landed from the opposite coast, and also removed the Singhalese Vannian princes Kadalivata, Mapana, Tipa, Himayanaka and others.’ After a few years of pious effort to make the teachings of the Buddha spread through the island by getting copies of the ‘three Piṭakas’ made and placing them in every monastery in the island, he died and was succeeded by his nephew Parākrama Bāhu. It was then that there arose a famine in the land, ‘then the five brethren who governed the Pāṇḍyan Kingdom, sent to this island at the head of an army, a great minister of much power, who was chief among the Tamils known as Āriya Chakravarti, albeit he was not an Āriya.²
c9.66
¹ Translation by Turnour and Wijesimha, Edn. by the Ceylon Government Press, Colombo.
c9.67
² The term Āriya Chakravarti has been taken to imply a Muhammadan general as there happened to be, at the time, a Muhammadan Customs Officer in high favour with the Pāṇḍya monarch. It is hardly necessary to point out that the existence of a Muhammadan in high position in the Pāṇḍya country will not warrant his identification with this Āriya Chakravarti when he is described by the chronicle as chief among the Tamils. He is said to be not an Āriya for the simple reason that he was a Tamil, a distinction that is maintained in the previous sections of the narrative as between the Tamils and the Singhalese. The term Āriya Chakravarti was a title, and many Tamil chieftains bore similar titles during this period.
c9.68
‘And when he had landed and laid waste the country on every side he entered the great and noble fortress, the city of Śubhagiri, and he took the venerable tooth-relic and all the solid wealth that was there, and returned to the Pāṇḍyan country, and there he gave the tooth-relic unto the king Kulaśēkhara, who was even like unto a sun expanding the lotus-like race of the great Pāṇḍyan kings’. Parākrama Bāhu apparently did not find himself strong enough to undertake an invasion to recover the precious relic, but preferred to go there with a few determined friends of his and obtain the relic ultimately as a favour by pleasing the monarch Kulaśēkhara during his stay there. This is a clear indication of the power and prestige of the Pāṇḍya monarch in the estimation at least of the Ceylonese, and that is fully reflected in what little of information we are able to glean from Chinese sources. Among the kingdoms which sent tribute to Kublai in 1286 is mentioned Ma-pa-’rh (Ma’bar). There are references to diplomatic intercourse between China and Ma’bar from 1280 onwards. One of these mentions the ‘five brothers who were Sultans (Suantan) referring apparently to the Pāṇḍyas of Marco Polo’s time. There is the further mention of Chamalating (Jamalu-d-din) who had been sent from Ma’bar to the Mongol court.¹
c9.69
¹ Pauthier quoted by Yule, Marco Polo, ii. 337.
c9.70
In regard to Sundara Pāṇḍya who had died recently when Marco Polo visited the country, he was in all probability the ruler, called by Kielhorn, Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya II, who ruled, according to the same authority, from A.D. 1276 to 1292. There were other Sundara Pāṇḍyas besides.
The Rival Brothers—Sundara Pandya and Vira Pandya
c9.s1.1
Māravarman Kulaśēkhara had two sons, the elder of them is known to epigraphists as Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya III and his accession took place sometime in A.D. 1302-3.
c9.s1.2
There was also a ‘natural son’ who is described as Jaṭāvarman Vīra Pāṇḍya and whose date of accession is A.D. June-July 1296. Apparently the father thought better of Vīra Pāṇḍya, and actually designed him for the succession as the Muhammadan historians have it. This is indicated by the fact that he is earlier associated with the father in the government, while the other rises to that honour six years after. The father’s preference for the more gifted prince provoked the jealously of the less gifted son, and led him to turn parricide about A.D. 1311-12; and the disputed succession provided the occasion for the invasion of Malik-Kafur, which will be dealt with in a later lecture.
The Disintegration of the Chola Empire—Its Causes
c9.s2.1
During much of this period, as has already been more or less clearly indicated in the course of the above history of the Pāṇḍyas, the Chola empire had reached a high degree of disintegration. The principal cause of this was the weakness and ineptitude of the Chola emperor Rājarāja III, 1316-1346, and at the end of his reign the civil war between himself and another prince, probably a brother, Rājendra III. The Hoysala intervened to preserve for Rājarāja the Chola Empire, but succeeded only in securing to him the southern most part of the empire—the Chola country proper. This intervention from the north-west naturally provoked less friendly intervention from rising powers from the north, and did not effectually prevent aggression from the south. The history of the rising power of the Pāṇḍyas, as already indicated above, exhibits the results of Pāṇḍya intervention from the south.
c9.s2.2
The Telugu Choḍas.—The northern power whose records state in clear terms an intervention in behalf of the Chola was that of the Telugu Choḍa chieftains of Nellore, known in inscriptions as Simhavikramapura or Vikramasimhapura. Under five generations of rulers these had gained possession of the northern districts of the Chola empire and even held possession of the town of Kāñchi, the head-quarters of the northern viceroyalty. Inscriptions of Manmasiddha and his brother Tammusiddha are available relating to early thirteenth century. The son of the former, Tikka by name, claims to have captured Kāñchi and defeated Sōmēśa at Champāpuri, (Śambuvarāyanallūr, near Tiruvallam) in the district of North Arcot, the country primarily of the Śambuvarāyans. His son Manmasiddha, who seems otherwise called Gaṇḍagopāla, which had become more or less a family title, was active in that region and having been dispossessed, sought and obtained the help of the contemporary Kākatīya ruler Gaṇapati. With his assistance, he fastened his hold on Kāñchī till the rival Chola Prince, Rājēndra Chola, rose to power and turned both Manmasiddha and Gaṇapati backwards perhaps as far as Nellore in the forties of the thirteenth century. He was followed by another ruler of that family usually known as Vijayagaṇḍagopāla, whose reign lasted from about A.D. 1250 to 1292. He was succeeded by a son of his Vīragaṇḍagopāla. These continued to be subordinate to the authority of the Cholas so long as the Chola power lasted, and afterwards perhaps to the Pāṇḍya, as we have already seen the great Pāṇḍya, Jaṭāvarman Sundara I, carried his arms successfully as far north as Nellore and performed there ‘the anointment of the victorious warrior.’
c9.s2.3
*The Śambuvarāyans.*—The region immediately adjoining, that is the district of North Arcot, was under a family of hereditary chiefs generally known by the class title Śambuvarāyan (Sans. Champa) rulers, who figure for the first time as powerful feudatories in the reigns of Rājādhirāja and Kulottunga III. They rise into importance and are found fighting sometimes on the side of their liege lords, the Cholas, and occasionally against them also. In the disturbed period extending from the end of the first quarter of the thirteenth century to the end of the Pāṇḍya ascendancy, they maintained the substance of real power though nominally subordinate to the Chola head-quarters, and later the Pāṇḍya. Except for figuring in the wars on the northern frontier, they do not appear to have played any very decisive part. They maintained their position intact along the Pālār. About the end of this period they rise into importance and we have inscriptions of Vīra Chola Śambuvarāyan, and Vīra Śambuvarāyan about the year A.D. 1314-15. In the period immediately following we find two rulers who assumed high titles indicating independence. Of these the first is Sakalaloka Chakravartin Veṇru Maṅkoṇḍa Śambuvarāyan, whose date of accession is A.D. 1322-23, followed by Sakalaloka Chakravartin Rājanārāyaṇa Śambuvarāyan, whose date of accession is A.D. 1337-8, and whose reign extended to A.D. 1356-57.¹ It was apparently this latter ruler that was overcome by prince Kumārakampana of Vijayanagar, who put an end to the independent power of the Śambuvarāyans in the North Arcot District with Virinchipuram and Kāñchī as their alternative capitals, and Paḍaivīḍu as their hill fortress. Along with these figure another class of minor chiefs who go by the designation Vāṇakkovaraiyar, the remnants perhaps of the Bāṇa dynasty.
c9.s2.4
¹ Ep. Rep. 1904, Sec. 27. ,, 1911 ,, 65. ,, 1913 ,, 67.
c9.s2.5
The Kākatīyas : Gaṇapati and Rudrāmbā.—During this period the Kākatīyas of Warangal made an effort at extending their territory southwards, and, on occasions, were in occupation of Kāñchī. The first Kākatīya intervention comes along with the advance of the Telugu-Choḍa chieftains to the south. It is king Gaṇapati of the dynasty that made this advance towards the south, and we have an inscription of his in the Viṣṇu temple at Kāñchīpuram.¹ This advance seems to have been at a time when the throne of Rājarāja III had passed on to Rājendra III, and Kopperunjinga dominated the whole of the northern division of the Chola empire. Kopperunjinga at any rate claims to have defeated the Kākatīyas, and we have already noted that Rājendra Chola, the successful rival of Rājarāja, also lays claim to conquests in the Telugu country reaching at least as far as Cuddapah and Nellore. During the last years of the reign of Gaṇapati, the great Pāṇḍya ruler, Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I, marched northwards, and his victorious advance up to Nellore and his coronation there made the Kākatīyas withdraw into their own territories. Gaṇapati's successor Rudrāmba, who ruled from A.D. 1260 to 1291 succeeding her father Gaṇapati, had apparently enough to do to keep her own kingdom without thinking of extending her territory. There is, however, a statement in one of her inscriptions that one of her officers, Amba Dēva by name, destroyed the Kāḍava Rāya. The same chief is also said to have established at Nellore, Manma Gaṇḍagopala who was dispossessed of his kingdom. These are all the glimpses that we get of Kākatīya activity in the south during the long reign of Gaṇapati and that of his daughter, which together practically cover the century, from A.D. 1200 to 1291-2, soon after which Marco Polo visited the Coromandal Coast of India.
c9.s2.6
¹ No. 2, Ep. Coll. of 1893. Another in the Ekāmranātha temple no. 26 of 1890 both of A.D. 1250.
c9.s2.7.1
Marco Polo.—Marco Polo calls the province that he first touched after leaving Ceylon Ma'bar, the usual Musalman designation of the Coromandal Coast extending from Kulam (Quilon) to Nilawar (Nellore). Marco Polo sailed westward from his port of embarkation for a distance of about sixty miles till he came to the province of Ma'bar, which he says was styled ‘India the Greater.’ According to him it is the best of the Indies and is on the mainland. He refers to the coast wherein he landed as among the possessions of the Pāṇḍyas, and of whom at the time there were five brothers ruling. ‘Sonder Bandi Dēvar’ (Sundara Pāṇḍya Dēvar), was the crowned king. He undertook to give a detailed account of the five provinces of the kingdom ruled by these brothers, and forgot to fulfil his promise. But the province that he describes at some length is ‘the finest and noblest in the world’, and was the sphere of Sundara Pāṇḍya. He refers apparently to the fishery coast where pearl fishing was the principal industry. This must be borne in mind to understand his itinerary. The port he visited on this coast has much exercised the ingenuity of scholars, and from various considerations both Yule and Cordier would refer the port to Kaveripaṭam.¹ The lead is taken by all these authorities from the statement of the Muhammadan writer Wassaf that Fittan, Mali Fittan and Kabil constituted the famous ports of which Takhiud-din Abdur-Rahman was the Marzaban (Margrave).
c9.s2.7.2
These three names are obviously Paṭṭaṇam, Mēlai Paṭṭaṇam, and Kāyal or Kāyal Paṭṭaṇam in the language of the locality. Kāyal, according to Marco Polo, was the premier port, whereto came all merchants from the east as well as the west, and from all over India, for purposes of trade. The other two stand in some geographical relation with this one. The words would stand, the port and the upper port, the term paṭṭinam meaning port. I believe the port on what is the island now is called Ramēśvara Paṭṭinam, sometimes also Paṭṭinam merely, but at the time of Marco Polo there was another great port on the inner side of the Gulf of Mannar, the ruins of which are now known as Periya Paṭṭaṇam. In the wars of Parākrama Bāhu in favour of one of the Pāṇḍyan princes, and against his brother, he is supposed to have taken on the mainland and in the peninsula, a village called Kundukāla and having fortified it with three circuits of walls and twelve gates, called it Parākrama-paṭṭaṇam, equi-distant from either sea. A little way to the south and on the coast lie the vast ruins of a city called Periya Paṭṭaṇam (large port or city) in the Ramnad Zamindari, already referred to above, where till recently people picked up coins and antiquities of sorts, and I am informed, a considerable portion of the ground plan of the city could still be traced at low water.
c9.s2.7.3
Any one of these three places might do, and that is the place where one would expect a boat sailing from Ceylon to land, having regard in particular to the fact that the port of embarkation at the time seems to have been Puttalam (Bathelar) in Ceylon, the Bhattala of Ibn Batuta; and the distance would be perhaps about sixty miles, a little more or less. We are bound to look for Fitan in that locality as the Mali Fitan seems certainly to be Dēvi Paṭṭaṇam about ten miles north of the town of Ramnad, but on the northern side of the island of Ramēśvaram. A medieval map is said to mark Mali Fatan in or about the locality.¹ For the mere name Paṭṭaṇam there are any number along the coast, more than twenty along the Tanjore coast; of which, at the time to which we are referring, the very town of Topputturai, as it is known at present, was called Vīraśoḷan Paṭṭaṇam; not far was a Kuḷottuṅga-śoḷa-paṭṭaṇam set over against Tirutturaippūṇḍi. A little way to the north of it was Negapatam; Kaveripatam at the mouth of the Kaveri; Jayangoṇḍapaṭṭaṇam near the mouth of the Coleroon and so on. In the Palk Strait itself south of Topputtorai, there is Adirāmpaṭṭaṇam to begin with, the name may be a later one; there is Ammāpaṭṭaṇam, there is Sundara Pāṇḍyan Paṭṭaṇam itself, and any number of paṭṭaṇams like that.
c9.s2.7.4
Battelar, which according to Marco Polo is the place where the ships collect before going on a pearl fishing expedition seems much rather to refer to a port on the continent than to one in Ceylon. We have a port in the peninsula near Maṇḍapam which goes by the name Vēdāḷai now, and it is just on the southern shore of the peninsula, and at the head of the Gulf of Mannar, a convenient starting point for the fisher-folk. There is a harbour to the east of it that is called Toṇitturai even now, apparently the place where boats assembled on their fishing expeditions for pearls.
c9.s2.8
¹ Yule’s Marco Polo: New Edn. by H. Cordier II. 332-8. H. Cordier in his new work ‘New Light on Ser Marco Polo’ has an additional note on this on p. 112. Quoting from Chau Jua Kua a passage extracted in Ma Tuan-lin and the Sung-shi, he states the Chola capital was five li distant from the sea, though the latter have 5,000 in place of five. He adopts Yule’s suggestion that Kaveripaṭam, the ‘Paṭṭaṇam’ par excellence of the Coromandal Coast, and at one of the mouths of the Kaveri, was the then Chola capital. Kaveripaṭam is not mentioned in any of the large number of the inscriptions of the time known to me; nor have I come across any reference to it in the literature of the period. If ‘all figures connected with Chu-lien in Chinese accounts are inexplicably exaggerated,’ and if a ‘Paṭṭaṇam’ was the Chola capital, Gangaikonda-paṭṭaṇam, already referred to on p. 56 must be the city meant. There is a reference, in another Chinese authority (ibid p. 114) to Pa-tan where there was a stūpa. This undoubtedly refers to Negapatam, and would justify my conclusion that there were several ports referred to by this abbreviated designation.
c9.s2.9
¹ See J.R.A. S.IV. (N.S.) p. 345 ff.
c9.s2.10
After describing the prosperity of the country under the rule of the Pāṇḍya, and referring to the horse trade of the locality he proceeds to describe Mailapūr and St. Thomas' Mount, and apparently proceeds further northwards as he says ‘when you leave Ma'bar and go about a thousand miles in a northerly direction you come to the kingdom of Mutfili (or Mosul). This was formerly under the rule of a king, and since his death, some forty years before it had been under his queen, a lady of much discretion, who for the great love she bore to him never would marry another husband. And I can assure you during all that space of forty years she had administered her realm as well as ever her husband did, or better. And as she was a lover of justice, of equity, and of peace, she was more beloved by those of her kingdom than ever was lady or lord of theirs before.'¹ He then proceeds to describe the diamond mines and recounts the famous story and the fabulous ways in which diamonds were got. 'In this kingdom also are made', according to him, 'the best and most delicate buckrams, and those of the highest price; in sooth they look like tissue of spiders' web!! There is no king nor queen in the world but might be glad to wear them.'
c9.s2.11
¹ Marco Polo Opus Cit., pp. 359-60.
c9.s2.12
We have referred above to his description of the Port of Kāyal, and quoted his statement that 'Asciar' was the eldest of the five brothers. This we have already stated was the Pāṇḍya king Kulaśekhara who ruled from A.D. 1268 to 1312 almost. We have inscriptions of this monarch in the Chola capital Gaṅgai-koṇḍa-śolapuram, in the capital Madura itself, and in the Tinnevelly district as far south as Ālvār Tirunagari, so that the statement that he is the supreme monarch is quite correct, and the Sundara Pāṇḍya that Marco Polo refers to must be the predecessor of the name who died in A.D. 1292, or the prince brother or nephew in charge of the coast district of Ramnad and the neighbourhood which Marco Polo must have touched in the course of his voyage.
c9.s2.13
The Coromandal Coast of Marco Polo.—From these various statements of Marco Polo we find that the Coromandal coast from the farthest south to the mouths of the Krishna, which were in some respects the limit of navigation, was ruled over by two dynasties of kings only; the Pāṇḍyas perhaps over the greater portion of the coast in the south, and the queen of the Kākatīyas in the north. At the time that Marco Polo was in this part of his voyage, queen Rudrāmba of the Kākatīyas must just have abdicated in favour of her grandson Pratāpa Rudra II, the last great king of the Kākatīya dynasty who came to the throne in A.D. 1291-2, and in whose reign Telingana, his kingdom, was reduced to subordination by the Muhammadans. The south was under a powerful king also, that is, Māravarman Kulaśēkhara I, who had a long reign of forty-four years, beginning with A.D. 1268 and reaching up to almost A.D. 1311. The territory of the former occupied the coast from almost the frontier of Ganjam up to the mouth of the northern Pennar and extended into the interior, north and south, across the middle of the present day Nizam's dominions. The region extending south from there to Cape Comorin and perhaps even farther west, was the territory of the Pāṇḍya, which at the time included the great bulk of the Chola kingdom. Its boundary was wide enough to include the district of Salem and part of Coimbatore extending south along the Western Ghats to the Cape. The northern frontier was uncertain. The conquests they made up to Nellore seem not to have been made permanently at all so that we might roughly demarcate the boundary between the Pāṇḍyas and the Hoysalas along a line drawn from Trichinopoly to Tiruvaṇṇāmalai and Villupuram along the road from Madura to Madras. On the other side of this line extended into the interior the territory of the Hoysalas, which under the greatest of their rulers Vīra Somēśvara, reached northwards as far as the frontiers of the Krishna, perhaps even a little beyond. The existence of a record of Somēśvara in Paṇḍharpur may, it is just possible, be held to indicate that his actual rule extended so far north.
c9.s2.14
The Hoysala Empire in the Period.—About the time to which we have come the Hoysala empire had for near forty years remained divided into two kingdoms. Somēśvara had associated with himself, since A.D. 1254-5 his son Vīra Rāmanātha, who succeeded him in the southern division of the empire. His alternative capitals were Kaṇṇanūr near Śrīrangam, and Kundāṇi in the northern frontier of the Salem district; the territory above the ghats was ruled by his half-brother Vīra Narasimha III. Vīra Rāmanātha died about A.D. 1293, and a son by name Vīra Viśvanātha ruled only for three years, perhaps four. Vīra Narasimha died almost about the same time as Rāmanātha, and was succeeded by his son Vīra Ballāḷa III in whom, in the early years of the last decade of the thirteenth century, the Hoysala empire again united. He maintained the three capitals at the three strategic points of the empire, namely, Halebīḍ in the north or north-west, Kundāṇi in the middle keeping communication with the country below, and Kaṇṇaṇūr in the south, with Tiruvaṇṇamalai as an alternative. The country immediately north of the Hoysalas and west of the Kākatīyas on the southern side of the Vindhya mountains was under the dynasty of the Yādavas of Dēvagiri with their capital at Dēvagiri. This was the political division of the south when the Muhammadans made the first irruption into the Dekhan under Alau-d-din Khilji in A.D. 1296.
c9.s2.15
The four kingdoms of the Peninsula.—India south of the Vindhyas in the last decade of the thirteenth century and the first of the fourteenth was thus divided into four well-marked kingdoms. The first was, as was stated above, the Yādava kingdom of Dēvagiri with its Capital at Dēvagiri (Deogir). It was ruled by the last great Yādava, Rāmacandra, who ascended the throne in A.D. 1271 and ruled till some time in A.D. 1309-10. The eastern half of the Dekhan and the Telingana coast was under Queen Rudrāmba of the Kākatīya dynasty with Capital at Warangal in the Nizam's Dominions. Sometime in A.D. 1291 she raised her grandson Pratāpa Rudra to the throne and retired. Pratāpa Rudra ruled from A.D. 1291 to A.D. 1328. The frontier of these two kingdoms came to almost a line drawn from Goa, or a little north, to the mouth of the northern Peṇṇār, somewhere to the east of Nellore. The whole country south of this was divided along a diagonal line say from Chidambaram or Cuddalore, along the main roads of traffic to Tiruvaṇṇamalai and Kundāṇi getting into the tableland a little way north of Hosur and from there to the Krishna, along eastern Mysore. The line proceeded further west along the mountains right down the Palghat gap to the sea. All north of the first line roughly belonged to the Hoysalas and all south to the Pāṇḍyas; the more open country along the coast right up to Nellore on the great Madura-Madras road, was a debatable frontier between these two powers. The last great ruler of the united Hoysala empire was Vīra Baḷḷāḷa III who succeeded his father Narasimha III in A.D. 1291-2 and ruled till his death in A.D. 1342. He was succeeded by a son Baḷḷāḷa IV, who perhaps ruled for three years more. All through this period the kingdom of the Pāṇḍyas in the south was held by a remarkably gifted ruler who gave the country peace and prosperity. This was Māravarman Kulaśekhara I, whose forty-fourth year we have records of. He ascended the throne in A.D. 1268 and ruled till sometime in A.D. 1311-2. The dissensions between his two sons brought in the Muhammadan intervention which took the form of the first Muhammadan invasion of the south.
First 89 of 105 passages. Read on