The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c14: Chapter X. The Pāṇḍyas of the Second Empire
The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c14
- Language
- English
Chapter X. The Pāṇḍyas of the Second Empire
c14.2
AFTER the close of the civil wars and the secure restoration by Kulōttunga III of Vikrama Pāndya to the throne of Madura, the Pāndya kingdom recovered rapidly much of the power and glory that characterized it in the days before the sack of Madura by Parāntaka I. We have at present no means of judging how far Vikrama Pāndya himself profited by his opportunity. He seems to have had on the whole a troubled time, and he was apparently a weak ruler who depended more on Kulōttunga’s support than on his own strength for defending himself against the attacks of his enemies. Even when he had occupied the throne for seven or eight years, it needed Kulōttunga’s intercession to maintain his power, when Vīra Pāndya attacked him in some force about A.D. 1187. After the campaign which ended in the defeat of Vīra Pāndya at Nettūr, Kulōttunga held a great durbar in the Pāndya capital at which Vīra Pāndya and his Chera contemporary did him obeisance and Kulōttunga placed his foot on the head of the former.¹ Thus, almost throughout his reign—Vikrama does not seem to have long survived the events just mentioned—Vikrama Pāndya was a feudatory of Kulōttunga III whose hold on the country was apparently real and effective. There comes, however, a decisive change in this relation between the Chola and the Pāndya rulers even during the life-time of Kulōttunga III with the accession of Jatāvarman Kulaśēkhara (A.D. 1190). From this time on, almost to the end of the thirteenth century, the power of the Pāndyas attained great strength and expanded as far north as Nellore and Cuddapah; a succession of able and truly distinguished rulers in the main line made this Second Empire a real power in the politics of South India in their age. Their successes in war, their patronage of literature and the arts, and the methods of their rule are amply borne out by the numerous records they have left behind. On the other hand, the power of the Cholas after Kulōttunga III declined to a very low ebb and dwindled into insignificance; and this was, no doubt, one of the factors that favoured the rise of the Second Empire of the Pāndyas.
c14.3
¹ The facts are narrated in two records of Kulōttunga dated in his eleventh and nineteenth years (Nos. 87 and 88 in S.I.I., vol. iii, part ii). The later record gives more details than the earlier, but the reference is evidently to the same transactions. See also the notes at the end of the last chapter.
c14.4
The interpretation of the epigraphs of the period however presents numerous difficulties which impose great limitations on any attempt to restore the history of the age. In the first place, there is no record, among the hundreds of inscriptions, which gives us any clue to the genealogy of the rulers of this age. Even the few copper-plates we possess, like the Tiruppūvanam plates, differ, in this respect, totally from similar documents of the Pāndyas of the earlier or later times, and fail to record genealogy. This is perhaps the most serious obstacle in our way, which is not altogether removed by the few contemporary references to the Pāndyas in the records of other ruling families and the many instances of astronomical details recorded in the Pāndya inscriptions themselves. These astronomical details yield different results in the hands of different scholars, and often in the hands of the same scholar at different times. New kings have been postulated and given up in a manner that has tended to make the chronology of the age a game of ninepins. As one wades through the results of Kielhorn, Jacobi, Swamikkannu Pillai and Sewell, one almost gets the feeling that ignorance, at least of astronomy, is bliss and the general rule followed in our narrative is not to accept any conclusion that is not endorsed by more than one of these four earnest savants whose patient labours, especially those of Kielhorn, have alone rendered possible even such a provisional narrative as is given here. It must be noted also that palæography fails to furnish any material assistance in confirming or correcting the results of astronomy. Mr. Sewell remarks:¹ ‘Unless the number of the solar day of the month is stated, and it is not as a rule stated, all the ordinary details of a Chola or Pāndya date will be found often to correspond with about three different days in a century’; and palæography cannot possibly decide among them.² And even the texts of most of these records are yet unpublished. It is obvious that in the present state of our knowledge we shall have to leave on one side all the records which cannot with confidence be assigned to one or another of the kings whose existence has been proved beyond possibility of doubt. Again no attempt can be made to fix the dynastic relations among the rulers of the age. But this is not all. There is the possibility, nay the great probability, that several princes ruled at the same time over different parts of the empire and these also engraved inscriptions in full or quasi-regal style. We have already seen reason to reject the theory of the regular co-regency of ‘Five Pāndya Rulers’ and to hold that although several princes of the royal family might have ruled in different parts of the kingdom simultaneously, there was a regular succession of kings who ruled in their own right, the others ruling more or less in a subordinate capacity. There is little reason to doubt that the main line of reigning kings is that restored by Kielhorn’s calculations and modified in some respects by his successors.
c14.5
¹ *I.A.*, vol. xliv, p. 169.
c14.6
² Mr. L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai, for instance, after wavering between two dates for a Māravarman Vikrama Pāndya’s accession 1269-70 and A.D. 1283 and between two rulers of the same name, finally gave up the A.D. 1283 date altogether; epigraphy furnishes no aid here. (See *A.R.E.*, 1922, part ii, para 31 and *A.R.E.*, 1925, part ii, para 28). The reader may also be referred to the strange manner in which the official epigraphist discusses No. 393 of 1917 at para 49 of part ii of the report for 1918. It should be noticed in particular that even when it is a question of dates centuries apart (in this case eleventh and thirteenth centuries) palæography is inconclusive. Sewell, at p. 191, *I.A.*, vol. xliv, makes a similar remark.
c14.7
Jatāvarman Kulaśēkhara, who came to the throne in A.D. 1190 and ruled in Madura in considerable power till A.D. 1217, may have been the immediate successor of Vikrama Pāndya; one of his early records in the second year (No. 110 of 1907 from Kallidaikuricci), however, seems to contain a reference to a Periyanāyanār (an elder male relative) Śrīvallabha, a predecessor of his; and a record in the third year of a Jatāvarman Śrīvallabha finds mention in another inscription of Kulaśēkhara’s successor, Māravarman Sundara Pāndya (No. 683 of 1905). It is not improbable that both these references are to the same Śrīvallabha, but we know nothing more of him.¹ Kulaśēkhara’s inscriptions range from his second to his twenty-eighth year (No. 658 of 1916) and generally open with one of three forms of historical introduction—பூதலமடந்தை (No. 5 of 1894), பூவின் கிழத்தி (No. 14 of 1894) and பூதலவனிதை (13 of 1894). None of these introductions tells us anything definite about the events of the reign; all of them contain highly poetic praise of the glory of the king; the nearest approach to a concrete historical statement occurs in the பூதலவனிதை formula in the phrase¹—‘ வஞ்சினங் கூறு மதகளிறவந்த வெஞ்சின வேங்கை வில்லுடனெளிப்ப,’ which is a vague hint that the Pāndya kingdom is beginning to hold its own against its Chola and Chera neighbours. A rather early inscription of the reign (No. 665 of 1916) from Śērmādēvi refers to a gift by the king to a temple in the name of his brother-in-law (மச்சனார்) Kōdai Ravivarman, undoubtedly a Chera prince. Another record of some years later (No. 370 of 1916) seems to imply that the contemporary Tiruvadi king of Jētunganādu was a subordinate of Kulaśēkhara; but we have as yet no means of explaining the dynastic connection mentioned in the earlier record.² In the numerous inscriptions of Kulaśēkhara from the Ramnad district, is found the name of one of the important local officials of the king, who seems to have played a considerable part for over a decade in the administration of the division known as Kalavalinādu and was thence known as Kalavali-Nādālvān, his proper name being mentioned as Jayangondaśōlan Śivalluvan (No. 313 of 1923).³ Several other instances can be cited from the other records of this and other kings. From the provenance of Kulaśēkhara’s inscriptions we may conclude that his rule extended over the bulk of the modern districts of Madura, Ramnad and Tinnevelly. There are references to thrones with different names, all of them in Madura and to maids in palace service (*agapparivāra*). No. 459 of 1909 mentions the throne Malavarāyan in the hall known as Pukaḷābharaṇan in the palace at Madura. The same record mentions a grant of 100 drammas (drachms) by the king for the deepening of a tank called after him. The other thrones were called Kalingarāyan (No. 29 of 1924) and Munaiyadaraiyan (No. 660 of 1916). The well-known Tiruppūvaṇam copper-plate grant dated in the twenty-fifth year of the king (29th November, A.D. 1214) records the grant of a new village created by clubbing together several old ones under the name Rājagambhīra-caturvēdimangalam after its boundaries were marked in the traditional manner by a female elephant.¹ The king would thus appear to have had a surname Rājagambhīra. His records also contain other particulars which throw some light on the administration and the social life of his time; but these may be reserved for separate consideration later.
c14.8
¹ A.R.E., 1908, part ii, para 42.
c14.9
¹ See S.I.I., vol. v, No. 428, ll. 2-3, contra the conjectural restoration களிறு [நடாததி] in l. 1 of No. 301 of the same volume. Some records (e.g. 512 of 1904 and 385 of 1914) seem to take us to the thirty-ninth year of a Jatāvarman Kulaśēkhara. But the texts are not available.
c14.10
² See A.R.E., 1917, part ii, para 8.
c14.11
³ A.R.E., 1924, part ii, para 26.
c14.12
¹ *I.A.*, vol. xx, p. 288. The text and translation in Burgess and Natesa Sastri's Tamil and Sanskrit inscriptions (*A.S.S.I.*, vol. iv). For agapparivāra maids see No. 720 of 1916.
c14.13
The successor of Jaṭāvarman Kulaśēkhara was Māravarman Sundara Pāndya whose accession is counted in his records from A.D. 1216.² It is just possible that this Sundara Pāndya was the brother of his predecessor, Jaṭāvarman Kulaśēkhara, and that both of them were the sons of that Vikrama Pāndya who was restored to the Pāndya throne at the close of the civil wars by Kulōttunga III, and consequently, grandsons of Kulaśēkhara in whose time the civil war began. This sugwere called to power about the same time; and they had no old memories, either of them, that need have hampered their ambitions. And it was the law of life in those days among Indian kings that he who could not be hammer had to be anvil.¹ It would seem that Sundara Pāndya invaded the Chola country very early in his reign, though the restoration of the country is not mentioned till the seventh year.²
c14.14
² Kielhorn, *E.I.*, vol. viii, App. II, p. 24. Also *A.R.E.*, 1927, part ii, para 41.
c14.15
¹ Dr. S. K. Aiyangar makes Sundara's war on the Cholas a war of revenge. (op. cit. p. 26; also 13-14). He holds that the Pāndyas felt the insult of Kulōttunga's durbar at Madura after the battle of Nettūr and wanted to avenge themselves by the durbar at Mudikondasōlapuram. I am not clear about this. But it should be remembered that Kulōttunga supported Parākrama Pāndya and only insulted his enemy Vira who represented the beaten party in the civil war. Again, Kulōttunga cut off Vira's head on the field of battle and caused it to be brought to the durbar in order that he, with his queen by his side, might set his foot on it (we have not accepted this view. See chap. ix); and there is nothing in the 'revenge' of Sundara Pāndya, to remind us of this barbarity. I accept Dr. S. K. Aiyangar's identification of Mudikondasōlapuram with Jayangondasōlapuram (n. 2, p. 44, op. cit.)
c14.16
² 362 of 1906 from Kudumiyāmalai (third year); 122 of 1910—Tenkarai (fourth year) and 353 of 1916—Tiruvālīsvaram (fifth year) and 122 of 1903—Tiruccunai (five+one year) contain the title 'who took the Chola country' but no reference to the restoration.
c14.17
The inscriptions of the twentieth year repeat these facts in identical language and add some further particulars. The king of North Kongu came and complained to Sundara Pāndya of the wrongs done to him by his relatives; then, after some time, came also the king of South Kongu, accompanied by an army and prostrated himself before the Pāndya; Sundara kept both the chiefs as his guests for some time and then dismissed them after imposing his own terms on them and demanding portions of their territory to be ceded to him on pain of death. Then, the Chola monarch, forgetful of the duty of submission and gratitude he owed to Sundara Pāndya, raised the standard of revolt and refused the usual tribute;
c14.18
there followed another expedition into the Chola country, leading to a battle which is described in considerable detail, but after a conventional manner. After the fight the Chola king was absolutely defenceless. The women of the Chola king including his chief queen fell into the hands of the enemy who carried them in captivity to Muḍikoṇḍaśōlapuram, where, apparently, there was another *Vīrābhiṣeka* celebrated by the victorious Pāndya.
c14.19
It is not easy to interpret these new particulars and relate them to the facts recorded in the earlier inscription so as to make a connected story. Apparently, between the seventh year of Sundara and the twentieth, i.e., between, say, A.D. 1222-3 and A.D. 1235-6, he found occasion to interfere in the affairs of the Kongu country and lead a second expedition against the Chola king. There seems to be no means of verifying or controlling the vague references to the rulers of North and South Kongu and their relations to Sundara Pāndya. It is more important to clear up, as far as possible, the relations between Sundara Pāndya and his Chola contemporary Rājarāja III; and in doing so, account must be taken of indications given by contemporary records other than those of Sundara Pāndya himself.
c14.20
Rāja Rāja III ruled from A.D. 1216 to about A.D. 1243. About A.D. 1220-23 must have taken place the first invasion of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya, and the conquest and restitution of the Chola country recorded in his inscription of the seventh year. A record of Hoysala Vīra Narasimha II in the year A.D. 1222 states that he was marching against Śrīrangam in the south while another dated two years later, A.D. 1224, calls him the establisher of the Chola kingdom.¹ Then, there is the gestion is supported by references to a Periyanāyaṇār Vikrama Pāṇdyadēva in the records of both these rulers.¹ Māravarman Sundara Pāṇdya's records often contain a fairly long and ornate introduction beginning பூமருவிய திருமந்தையும் (e.g. No. 49 of 1890), which is of considerable interest to the historian.² His well-known Tirupparankuṇram inscription (No. 49 of 1890) is dated in the seventh year of his reign and furnishes very important and interesting particulars; while another record dated thirteen years later (No. 140 of 1894) from Tinnevelly tells us a little more about the intervening years.³ The earlier record tells us that after his coronation, the Pāṇdyas extended their sway at the expense of the Cholas and refers to an expedition of Sundara Pāṇdya against the Chola country in the course of which he set fire to the cities of Tanjore and Uraiyūr and laid waste the surrounding country. The Chola king had to seek refuge in flight and then the Pāṇdyan invader celebrated a *Vīrābhiṣeka* in the coronation hall of the Cholas. After that he proceeded north to worship at the shrine of Naṭarāja in Chidambaram. Apparently, during his sojourn in Chidambaram, he sent for his defeated enemy saying that he would restore to him the country and crown that he had recently lost; and the Chola king returned and together with his son prostrated before the royal seat of the victorious Pāndya; the victor, true to his word, restored the crown and country of the Chola in the form of a religious gift, which was confirmed by the issue of a royal rescript with the Pāndyan seal on it and the title of Choḷapati to the vanquished ruler. So much we learn from the record of the seventh year. It may also be noted that in the records of the seventh and subsequent years Sundara Pāndya gets one or another of the titles சோணாடு கொண்டருளிய, சோணாடு கொண்டு முடி கொண்ட சோழபுரத்து வீரர் அபிஷேகம் பண்ணியருளிய and சோணாடு வழங்கியருளிய, the first title appearing even as early as the third year of the king (No. 362 of 1906).
c14.21
¹ Hultzsch in *E.I.*, vol. vii, p. 162. But see text *infra*.
c14.22
¹ *A.R.E.* 1927 *Ibid.* (Nos. 47 of 1926 and 83 of 1927).
c14.23
² The formula பூமலர்திருவும் is that of the later king of the same name wrongly given to this king in *A.R.E.*, 1917, part ii, para 8, also *A.R.E.*, 1915, part ii, para 32. Inscription No. 488 of 1916 which clearly belongs to this king is reported to begin பூமருவிய திருமாதும். As the full text is not available it is not possible to say if this is only a variant of the usual formula of this king or a new one.
c14.24
³ These two forms of the பூமருவிய introduction are repeated in other records as well. But the enlarged version is not earlier than the twentieth year. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar is rather inconclusive in his remarks about Māravarman Sundara and his campaigns in his *South India and Her Muhammadan Invaders*, pp. 26-7, 34 and 44-5, especially with regard to the internal chronology of the reign. Thus achievements claimed 'by inscriptions of the ninth year of Māravarman Sundara Pāṇdya', (p. 26) 'must have taken place before the nineteenth year of Māravarman Sundara I', (p. 34).
c14.25
Now, there is little reason to doubt that the facts so recorded in Sundara's inscriptions are substantially true; and the language of every inscription makes it a paean of triumph. For the first time after several centuries of subjection to Chola rule, followed by a period of civil war and abject dependence on Chola support, Sundara Pāndya apparently in the prime of life had successfully carried fire and sword into the heart of the Chola country and what was more, had, by an act of political good sense in restoring the Chola country to its vanquished ruler, raised himself and his country in the estimation of his contemporaries. The ground had been prepared in the days of Kulaśēkhara, but so long as Kulōttunga III lived, the memory of the support Vikrama Pāndya had had at his hands against Vīra survived, and Kulōttunga himself was a more capable ruler than his ill-starred successor Rājarāja III. Rājarāja III and Sundara Pāndya well-known Tiruvēndipuram inscription in the sixteenth year of Rāja Rāja (A.D. 1231-32), from which we learn that the Chola emperor, who had been imprisoned by his rebellious feudatory Kōpperunjinga, was released and restored to power, by the intervention of two generals of Vīra Narasimha, in order to maintain his reputation of being the establisher of the Chola country. Lastly, we have the record of Sundara Pāndya in his twentieth year (A.D. 1235-6) which gives the story of another defeat and dethronement of Rāja Rāja. These are the facts relevant to an understanding of the history of the period, and the chronology indicated above seems to be rather well established.
c14.26
There is reason also to think that at this time the Pāndya, Chola and Hoysala families were connected by marriage alliances. A Chola princess is known to have been among the queens of Narasimha's father Ballāla II.¹ Rājendra III, the successor of Rāja Rāja, calls Sōmēśvara, the son of Narasimha, uncle (Māma).² Again, Māravarman Sundara Pāndya II (acc. 1238) refers also to Sōmēśvara as Māmadi, uncle or father-in-law, and it has been suggested that this relationship may be explained by supposing that Māravarman Sundara Pāndya I (acc. 1216) married a sister of Sōmēśvara,³ probably the one mentioned in some Pāṇḍya records of the age as Pammiyakkan. And, as we shall see, under Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya II, the Pāṇḍya and the Hoysala rulers were on very friendly terms. These facts go to show that by virtue of their power and their dynastic connections, the Hoysalas of this period were able and perhaps anxious in their own interest to regulate the affairs of the southern kingdoms, in particular the relations between the Pāṇḍyas and the Cholas. It appears likely, therefore, that the restitution of the Chola country (c. A.D. 1222) to its ruler by Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I after the first conquest was not altogether unconnected with Narasimha’s march against Śrīrangam about the same time.
c14.27
¹ Epigraphia Carnatica, vol. v, p. xxii; Q. J. M. S., vol. ii, p. 120.
c14.28
² E.I., vol. vii, Kielhorn's inscriptions of South India, No. 865, (No. 65 of 1892).
c14.29
³ A.R.E., 1907, part ii, para 26 and 1912, part ii, para 34. It may be noted that Mr. Krishna Sastri's assumption that Tribhuvanacakravartin Konērinmaikondān of Nos. 526 and 527 of 1911 was Māravarman Sundara Pāndya II does not appear essential to his argument, as it would be if these records began பூமலர்திருவும். In the absence of information on this point and in view of the records being signed by officers of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya I, one is tempted to assign these records to this ruler rather than to his successor. If this is correct, and if Mr. Krishna Sastri's conjecture about Pammiyakkan can be upheld by further evidence, then these records will become very important in settling the main lines of the tangled diplomacy
c14.30
Now what was the nature of Narasimha’s intervention? In effect, it seems to have ended in the re-establishment of the Chola on the throne and the consequent assumption of the title Choḷarājya (maṇḍala) pratiṣṭhācārya by Narasimha. It is not however so easy to judge what the effect of the intervention was on the Pāṇḍya king and his kingdom. The Pāṇḍya conquest of the Chola country is referred to as early as the third year of Sundara Pāṇḍya, while the restoration of the kingdom is not mentioned in any inscription earlier than the seventh year. The interval, A.D. 1219-23, covers, in Hoysala history, the death of Ballāla II and the early years of Narasimha II. An inscription of Narasimha in A.D. 1223 (Cn. 197)¹ gives him the titles ‘displacer of
c14.31
of the age on the lines indicated in the text in a very tentative manner. See also Mysore Arch. Report, 1920. p. 48. No. 15 of 1912 from Tinnevelly contains a gift to the local temple by a relative of an officer of Sōmēśvara. ¹ The summary that follows is based on Lewis Rice, *Epigraphia Carnatica*, vol. v, part i, Introd., pp. xxii ff.
c14.32
Pāndya (*Pāndya disāpattanum*), and establisher of the Chola kingdom’. Another of the same date (Cn. 203) says—‘why describe his forcible capture of Adiyama, Chera, Pāndya, Magara and the powerful Kādavas? Rather describe how he lifted up Chola, brought under his orders all the land as far as Sētu.’ Narasimha is called ‘Indra to the mountain, the pride of the Pāndya champion’. (Ak. 82 of A.D. 1234). There is also a reference in a record of A.D. 1237 (Ak. 123)¹ to a victorious expedition (*digvijaya*) against the Pāndya and to ‘the sea roaring out with the sounds of great fish, sharks and alligators, saying to Pāndya kings, give up all, and live in peace as his servants.’ A much later record of one of his successors (Bl. 74) dated in A.D. 1261 says that Narasimha ‘setting up the Chola, who was covered up by the dust from the feet of the hosts of enemies, acquired fame as the establisher of the Chola and the destroyer of the Pāndya.’ Now, the vague reference to the sea advising the Pāndyas to surrender (Ak. 123) may be dismissed as poetic and also the reference to Narasimha’s fame as ‘destroyer of the Pāndya’ may be discounted as a late account not entitled to the same weight as the strictly contemporary references in the earlier records. The phrase ‘displacer of the Pāndya’ may be taken to furnish the clue to a correct estimate of the nature of Narasimha’s intervention on behalf of the Chola ruler. He did not want the Chola power to disappear altogether to the great aggrandizement of the Pāndya; he therefore made up his mind to help the Chola to regain his kingdom; this meant that the Pāndya ruler had to agree to restore the Chola country in the manner described already, and to that extent it was a setback to the Pāndya power. It is however quite possible that in the final settlement, the Pāndya and the Hoysala monarchs took each something for himself from the Chola empire. Such an end to this intervention may explain the conquests of Narasimha near Śrīrangam at this time, and the claim of tribute which Sundara Pāndya seems to have enforced successfully against the Chola for some years. In other words, Narasimha's intervention was as much diplomatic as it was military, as much in his own as it was in the Chola interest. We have no means of deciding whether the dynastic connection between the Hoysalas and the Pāndyas is to be dated before or after the events or was part of the settlement on this occasion.¹
c14.33
¹ Rice remarks in his summary of this inscription that it ‘describes the king as encamped in A.D. 1234 at Ravitadāna-kuppa while on a victorious expedition over the Pāndya’; and this has led Mr. Krishna Sastri to postulate a Hoysala invasion of the Pāndya country in continuation of the Sēndamangalam expedition (1232-3) of the Hoysala generals recorded at Tiruvēndipuram. *A.R.E.*, 1911, part ii, para 47 and *Q.J.M.S.*, vol.ii, p. 122. But a reference to the text and translation of AK. 123 shows that the date, Saka 1156, refers to the setting up of the God Laksmi Narasimha in Somanāthpur and *not* to the encampment.
c14.34
¹ If this reconstruction of the relations is correct, we must assume that the Hoysala records exaggerate the achievements of Narasimha in a military sense as against the Pāndya king; a feature which seems quite natural if we compare it to the silence of the Pāndya inscriptions as to the actual causes of the restoration of the Chola country.
c14.35
There is very little evidence to show that, as has sometimes been held,² the Pāndya ruler had the cooperation of Kōpperunjinga in his war against the Chola king. The very full records of the Pāndya ruler make no reference to this; nor does the Tiruvēndipuram inscription, which gives the account of Kōpperunjinga’s rebellion against Rāja Rāja, give any hint of the Pāndya ruler being involved in it. The Hoysalas had an important interest in the Chola ruler and his country, apparently all through Rāja Rāja’s reign, and they were ever ready to rescue him from the numerous misfortunes to which he was subject. But on the occasion of the second conquest of the Chola country by Sundara Pāndya (c. A.D. 1234-5) the Hoysalas seem to have left Rāja Rāja to shift for himself; at any rate we do not know that they actively interfered, although Rāja Rāja even after his apparently crushing defeat, seems still to have continued in some power up to A.D. 1243.
c14.36
² E.g. by Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, *South India and Her Muhammadan Invaders*, pp. 33-6. It must be observed that the mention of Kādava or Kādavas in the Hoysala records (e.g. Cn. 203) is not conclusive proof of such an alliance as many chieftains seem to have had this title at the time. See, however, Mr. Shama Sastry on the *Gadyakarṇāmṛta* in the *Mys. Arch. Report*, 1924, p. 12.
c14.37
Thus the two expeditions of Sundara Pāndya against the Chola country do not appear to have resulted in any permanent occupation or conquest of the Chola country, though there are some records of this king outside the Pāndya country which confirm the historicity of the events recorded in the inscriptions cited above.¹ The direct and effective sway of Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I must be taken to have been more or less confined to the Pāṇḍya country, including in it portions of modern Pudukkottai and Trichinopoly; this at any rate is the conclusion that arises from the provenance of the many inscriptions that can be assigned to him without any possibility of doubt. There are references in the records (546 of 1922, 148 of 1908, etc.) to a throne Maḷavarāyan at Madura; one record (No. 77 of 1916) refers to a throne of the same name in a palace at Pon Amarāvati in Puramalaināḍu; it also refers to a Muḍivaḷangumperumāḷśandi evidently instituted in commemoration of the restitution of the Chola crown and the date of the record is 528 days after the fifth year, i.e., the seventh year of the king. The coins¹ with the legend Śoṇāḍukoṇḍan must also be ascribed to this king. A record from Mēḷakaḍayam (No. 524 of 1916) in the eighteenth year of the king refers to a shrine called Kaliyugarāmēśvara, which indicates that the title Kaliyugarāma, found also in some coin legends, may belong to our king or some predecessor of his. Atiśayapāṇḍyadēva seems to have also been another title of this king.²
c14.38
¹ Some of these records may be noted here;—one record from Srirangam in the ninth year (No. 53 of 1892-S.I.I. Texts, vol. iv, No. 500) which refers to a reform in the temple affairs; No. 52 of 1897 in the seventh year from Tirukkāttupalli recording the building of a shrine to the Goddess (E.I., vol. vi, p. 304) and No. 270 of 1901 from Kōviladi (Tanjore Taluq) may, among others, be surely ascribed to our king as they all refer to his conquest or restoration of the Chola country. I doubt if records like 41 and 561 of 1921 from Big Kānchipuram and Sūlamangalam (respectively) which do not contain any specific reference to the conquest of the Chola among the titles of the king may, on grounds of astronomy alone, be ascribed to this king as has been done. A. R. E., 1926 contains a discussion of this king’s reign which may be briefly noticed here. The epigraphist is surely wrong in saying that the anointment at Mudikondaśōlapuram is mentioned only in the records of the fourteenth year and afterwards (see inscription of the seventh year summarized earlier in this chapter). He says that some historical introductions of this king refer to conquests of the two Kongus, Ilam and Karuvūr. The only instances seem to be No. 9 of 1926 and No. 72 of 1924 which cause a difficulty by
c14.39
¹ See Sir T. Desikachari's papers on Pāṇḍyan Coins in the *Tamilian Antiquary*. It has been supposed that coins with the legend, Kaccivaḷangum-perumāḷ may also belong to this king; but one wishes there was more evidence in favour of the supposition than is available at present.
c14.40
² No. 662 of 1916 from Śērmādēvi and *A.R.E.*, 1917, part ii, para 9.
c14.41
being mixed up with the name of Kulōttunga III and his achievements. The epigraphist says that No. 9 of 1926 records that the Chola kingdom was restored to Kulōttunga III, and after a careful consideration of the points made in his discussion, I cannot help thinking that there is some mistake here either in the inscription or in its rendering. These two records are of the fifteenth and sixteenth years, and both come from the Ramnad district. May it be that there was something in this part of Sundara's reign that led him to look upon himself as the successor of Kulōttunga III or to ignore his successor Rāja Rāja by adopting the device of a double historical introduction?
c14.42
A certain Sōlan Uyyaninrāduvān alias Gurukulattarayan appears to have been an important person among the officials of the king. No. 554 of 1922 which contains verses in praise of him states that he was the minister of the king and that he built the garbhagrha, the ardha-mandapa and the mahā-mandapa of the Perumāl (Visnu) temple at Tiruttangāl. He is eulogized as the lord of Tadanganni and as one who set apart his village Ānaiyūr alias Tennavan Śīrrūr, for conducting the Sundara Pāndyan-śandi, in the seventh regnal year of the king. He ultimately rose to such an eminence in the state that whenever he visited the temple he enjoyed the honour of a kālam being sounded proclaiming: ‘Hail! Gurukulattambirān is come.’ This Gurukulattarayar also constructed a stone temple for Tangāl Īśar and his consort Gaurī; other benefactions of his are also recorded.¹
c14.43
¹ A.R.E., 1923, Part ii, paras 49-50.
c14.44
We find mention of other local chieftains like Malavar Mānikkam and Kandan Udayanjeydān Gāngēyan whose benefactions enriched temples and mathas and also gave a stimulus to learning and art. We hear of a court-poet of the king introducing another poet to the chief Gāngēyan; and a certain ‘Kavirāyar Īśvara Śiva Udaiyār of Uttaradēśam’ was the guru of Malavar Mānikkam and recipient of a ‘Gurudaksina’ in the shape of land.² Several other records of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya contain interesting references to institutional and cultural matters; but these references are best reserved for consideration together with similar records of other Pāndyan kings of the Second Empire.
c14.45
² A.R.E., 1924, Part ii, paras 29 and 32.
c14.46
The latest records of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya are dated in his twenty-third year¹ and his reign must be taken to have come to a close some time in A.D. 1238–1239. The immediate successor or the heir-apparent in the last years of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya was a Jatāvarman Kulaśēkhara who seems to have had a very short reign, his accession being somewhere in June A.D. 1238.² Sewell remarked in 1915 that better proof was required than was then forthcoming for placing this king between the two Māravarman Sundara Pāndyas of this period. A record from Tiruttangāl (No. 548 of 1922) furnishes such proof. This inscription,³ dated in the second year of Jatāvarman Kulaśēkhara refers to the gift of land in Anaiyūr by Śōlan Uyyaninrāduvān *alias* Gurukulattarayan for the Sundara Pāndyan Sandi instituted by him in honour of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya (acc. A.D. 1216). But we do not hear anything more of this Jatāvarman Kulaśēkhara and so far no records that could be positively ascribed to him are known to mention a regnal year later than the second. We may perhaps suppose that Kulaśēkhara died in the life-time of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya and that before his death, he chose as heir-apparent another Māravarman Sundara Pāndya whose accession has been placed between July 13 and December 7, A.D. 1238.¹ To the reign of this Māravarman Sundara Pāndya we may therefore turn.
c14.47
¹ No. 207 of 1914 from Vellanūr in Pudukottah. At part ii, para 49, A.R.E., 1923, it is stated that records in twenty-two plus one year are among those in the year's collection; but there seems to be no inscription of the twenty-third year in that collection. Mr. L. D. Swamikkannu (Ind. Eph., vol. i, part ii, p. 91) quotes a Pudukottah record of the twenty-eighth regnal year but the date is not quite regular and may not be of this king.
c14.48
² See I.A., vol. xliv, pp. 190-1.
c14.49
³ This is discussed in A.R.E., 1923, part ii, para 51. Mr L. D. Swamikkannu's attempts to prove a longer regnal period for this king I.A., vol. xlii and Ephemeris. Vol. I, part ii, p. 91 cannot be held convincing. Also A.R.E., 1916, App. G. In the Pudukottah inscriptions, Nos. 330 to 337 which give high regnal years ranging from eight to twenty-six certainly belong to the earlier king. Most of these contain references to Kandan Aludaiyān *alias* Kalvāyil Nādalvān, who is also referred to in No. 246 of the third year of the earlier king as also in No. 269 of the eighth year of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya I. This Aludaiyān gets dates from A.D. 1193 to 1224 roughly. It is very unlikely that he survived up to the twenty-sixth year of Jatāvarman Kulaśēkhara II, which would fall about A.D. 1264. The astronomical details in 330 are said to yield A.D. 1245; but, very likely, there are other solutions.
c14.50
¹ *I.A.*, vol. xliv, p. 191. In No. 78 of 1916 which is a record of the Sundara Pāndya who took the Chola country, etc., there is a reference to a brother-in-law (*maccunanār*) of the king, whose name was Kulaśēkhara. One wonders if this brother-in-law is identical with the shortlived king Jaṭ. Kulaśēkhara II. But there is nothing to support this conjecture except the name.