The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c15: Chapter XI. Māravarman Sundara (acc. A.D. 1238): Jaṭāvarman Sundara (acc. A.D. 1251)
The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c15
- Language
- English
Chapter XI. Māravarman Sundara (acc. A.D. 1238): Jaṭāvarman Sundara (acc. A.D. 1251)
c15.2
MĀRAVARMAN SUNDARA PĀNDYA II succeeded to the throne in A.D. 1238. His inscriptions begin with the characteristic formula *Pūmalar Tiruvum Poru Jayama-ḍandaiyum* and as there seems to be as yet none of these that gives a regnal year higher than 15 (No. 132 of 1894), his reign must be taken to have continued up to about A.D. 1253.¹ The historical introduction of this ruler furnishes no information of any value and most of his records make large grants for various religious purposes such as the study and recitation of religious hymns in temples. There is no reason to believe that the extent of the kingdom suffered any diminution under this ruler and the political relations among the Pāndyas, Cholas and Hoysalas seem not to have altered much since the time of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya I. The frequent
c15.3
¹ For the date of accession, see Kielhorn. *E.I.*, vol. viii. Also Swamik-kannu in *I.A.*, vol. xlii and Sewell in *I.A.*, vol. xliv. No. 141 of 1902 from Tiruvēndipuram gives the sixteenth year, but as the text is not available, it is not possible to say if it belongs to this king. A more serious difficulty is presented by No. 616 of 1902 from the Tanjore district which refers to the seventeenth year and has been referred to A.D. 1255, (i.e., to our king) by Messrs. Sewell and Swamikkannu Pillai. But this record like some others gives the title 'who conquered every country' (e.g. 402 of 1905, 358 of 1908, 446 of 1909, 582 of 1915). I am unable to accept this as belonging to Māravarman Sundara II *acc.* 1238, because (*a*) No. 462 of 1916 of the year 12 of Māravarman Sundara Pāndya 'who was pleased to take all countries' contains astronomical details which, according to Mr. Swamikkannu Pillai, do not suit any date between A.D. 1216 and 1315 and (*b*) Sewell has found the astronomical details in 616 of 1902 not quite regular (*I.A.*, vol. xliv, p. 192).
c15.4
We have also to leave on one side for the time being three records of Māravarman Sundara from Pattamadai and Sērmādēvi (560, 562 and 668 of 1916) with the formula *Pūmalar Tiruppuya*, etc., one of which (562) refers to the sixth year of Periyanāyanār Kulaśēkhara.
c15.5
References to the Hoysalas and their generals in the records of this reign, however, make us doubt if Māravarman Sundara Pāndya II did always feel strong enough to resist the friendly but meddlesome interference in his affairs by his relatives from the Mysore country. In the eleventh year of his reign he names a village in the Tinnevelly district after his Māmaḍi (uncle?) Hoysala Vīra Somēśvara at his suggestion and about the same time a military officer of the Hoysala king Varaḍaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka is present in Tinnevelly.¹ Earlier in the reign a dispute between Vaiṣṇavas and Śaivas in Tirumaiyyam, Pudukottah, which was then evidently included in the Pāndyan kingdom, was settled by Appaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka, a general of Hoysala Vīra Somēśvara,² who, in some Mysore records, is called Pāndyakula-samrakṣaṇa-dakṣa-dakṣiṇa-bhuja. In another case there is a reference to a Maccunanār (மச்சுனனார்) Vikrama-choladēva, who seems to have had a share in guiding the direction of the king's charities.³ Under this king Madura was the usual residence of the monarch and two thrones Maḷavarāyan and Pallavarāyan both in the palace at Madura are frequently referred to in inscriptions which record the orders of the king.⁴
c15.6
¹ No. 156 of 1894 and 138 of 1894.
c15.7
² No. 387 of 1906 and A.R.E., 1907, part ii, para 26. The Hoysala general is said to have settled the dispute after the conquest of Kānanāḍu and Venkayya supposed that this conquest was undertaken on behalf of the friendly Pāndyan king. For the title of Somēśvara see Epig. Carn., vol. v, part i, p. xxv.
c15.8
³ No. 132 of 1894 line 15. (S.I.I., vol. v).
c15.9
⁴ Nos. 132 and 149 of 1894.
c15.10
The next ruler in the main line was the celebrated Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya, under whom the Second Empire of the Pāndyas reached its widest extent and attained the height of its splendour. Practically the Whole of Southern India up to Nellore and Cuddapah was brought for a time under Pāndya supremacy and all the rival dynasties, old and new, were beaten in the field or laid under tribute. The Cholas were reduced to a very obscure state and the Hoysalas were punished for their past aggressiveness; the Kongu country passed under the Pāndyas, and the Hoysala power was confined to its original home in Mysore. Kānchīpura became a secondary capital of the Pāndya empire and in the south the island of Ceylon was firmly held by the Pāndyan rulers of this period, while the Kērala rulers were made tributaries of the empire. It would seem that in all these achievements Sundara Pāndya was ably assisted by princes who were more or less closely related to him and held subordinate positions in various parts of the empire. At least one of these is well-known from his records, a Jatāvarman Vīra Pāndya of whom something will be said at the beginning of the next chapter.¹
c15.11
¹ Reason has been shown before for not accepting the theory of five rulers reigning contemporaneously from generation to generation. Mr. L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai himself seems to have abandoned the theory on further consideration, as his discussion of Pāndya chronology (mediæval) in part ii of vol. i of his *Indian Ephemeris* proceeds on other lines. The new arrangement he adopts is to bring together all the Jatāvarmans and make them constitute one line of rulers and likewise make another, a second line, out of all the Māravarmans—a course which is not supported by any reasons stated. And even so, overlapping of reigns has not been avoided. Of this very important and vexed question, I am, after a close study of the numerous records, unable to see any solution other than the one followed in the text, that is, generally to follow Kielhorn's lead and select the more important and better represented kings for being treated as in the main line of succession and to make the less known rulers subordinate in position. This is the best that can be done till some discovery enables us to settle the genealogy of the rulers of this period. The absence of published texts of most of the records relating to this period imposes a serious handicap on any one who attempts its study.
c15.12
One general remark may be made. The presence of several contemporary rulers may be a sign of strength in the empire as in the case of the Chola It has been possible to calculate within remarkably narrow limits the date of the accession to the throne of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya and to fix it between April 20 and 28, A.D. 1251.¹ His records can be distinguished easily by the attribute ‘*Emmand-alamum-koṇḍaruḷiya*’ which belongs only to him among the Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndyas. Several of his records also start with the characteristic string of surnames in Sanskrit commencing with *Samasta-jagaḍā dhāra*. More rarely there is a long historical introduction in Tamil beginning *Pūmalar Valar Tikaḷ*. Besides a long Sanskrit stone inscription in the Śrīrangam temple, there are several stanzas in Sanskrit celebrating the king’s martial prowess and political power and recording his splendid gifts to various temples in Tinnevelly, Chidambaram, Tiruppuṭkuḷi, Kāñchīpuram and other places. But all the same, it is not possible to give a connected chronological narrative of the transactions of the emperor’s reign from the numerous records of his time as so few of them are dated. The Sanskrit inscriptions are all of them in verse and yield no dates whatever. Of the Tamil records, several contain astronomical particulars and generally bear regnal years, but most of these relate to private transactions or record religious gifts without containing any references to the political occurrences of the reign. Almost the only exception among
c15.13
¹ See Kielhorn, *E.I.*, vol. ix, p. 227 and R. Sewell following L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai in *I.A.*, vol. xliv, pp. 192-4.
c15.14
empire of the tenth and eleventh centuries and the Pāndya empire of the thirteenth, especially after the accession of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya (1251); or it may be a sign of weakness as in the case of the Pāndyas of the period of decline in the Tinnevelly district. There will of course be a difference. In the one case the presence of a strong central rule unifies the administration of the kingdom; in the other, each ruler goes his own way, and jealousy and weakness are the result.
c15.15
the published records of the reign is an inscription in the seventh year of the king from Tiruppūndurutti in the Tanjore district (No. 166 of 1894) with the long historical introduction¹ *Pumalar*, etc., and this gives us an idea of the king's prodigious activity in the early years of his rule.
c15.16
¹ The same historical introduction was published by Mr. T. A. Gopinatha Rao in the *Sen Tamil*, vol. iv, pp. 514-6. Mr. Rao's text has been reproduced and translated by Dr. S. K. Aiyangar in the Appendix to his *South India and Her Muhammadan Invaders*. The regnal year at the end is not given and it is not known if the introduction is taken from No. 166 of 1894 or a different record. However that may be, the text differs in some respects from the official text published in the *S.I.I.*, vol. v, as will be seen from the subsequent notes.
c15.17
Sundara Pāndya proceeded against the Chera king with a very small force and destroyed him and his forces in a battle and ravaged the Malainādu;² he then compelled the warlike Chola of ancient lineage to pay him tribute; afterwards he attacked the Hoysalas in the region of the Kāvēri and besieged them in a fortress;³ after inflicting great losses on the Hoysala forces and killing many commanders like the brave Singana, Sundara Pāndya captured the elephants and horses of the enemy together with a large amount of treasure and a number of women, but refrained from fighting further when he began to retreat from the field.⁴ Sundara then did away with the traitorous Sēma (சேமன்)⁵, captured Kaṇṇanūr-Koppam which no one else could even think of approaching and ruled the rich Kāvēri country as if it were the Kanni land.¹ He imposed a tribute of elephants on the Karṇāṭa king ² and compelled the ruler of Ceylon to surrender pearls and elephants.³ He then attacked the strong fortress of the rich city of Śēndamangalam and fought several engagements which struck terror into the heart of the Pallava; having thus become master of his territory, and captured his forces and treasure, Sundara finally restored him to the rulership of the land. He then went to Chidambaram and worshiped God Naṭarāja, and proceeded to Śrīrangam where he wore the garland of victory,⁴ performed
c15.18
² Cf. *Hatvā Cēram* in No. 179 of 1892 and *Kēralavamsa-nirmūlana* in the Sanskrit introduction.
c15.19
³ The reading புரிசையடைத்து is in the *S.I.I.* text. The *Sen Tamil* text leaves a gap here.
c15.20
⁴ 'Thinking that it is unfair to fight the Hoysala who had taken to flight, he made him ascend the mountain' i.e., perhaps go back to the plateau country (Text of the *S.I.I.*)
c15.21
⁵ Here Mr. Gopinatha Rao reads சேரன் for சேமன். But the latter is no doubt the correct reading whatever it means. The defeat and death of the Chera king has already been mentioned and the Sanskrit records of the reign leave no doubt as to the reading; *Kṣēmais-samam-Sēuṇāh* in No, 179
c15.22
¹ There is a play on பொன்னிநாடு and கன்னிநாடு, the idea being that the Chola country became as much a part of Sundara Pāndya's empire as the traditional Pāndya country. Here the conjectural பொன் in the official text should certainly be க.
c15.23
² The words preceding கருடராஜனை are not easy to make out. Mr. Gopinatha's text has ‘பெருவரையானிற் பின்னருக்காகிய’ and the official text reads ‘பெருவரையாணிற் பின்னருக்காகிய’ while the correct reading appears to be ‘பெருவரையாணிற் பின்னருக்காகிய’ which may recall ‘அவன் தன்னை வெற்பேற்றி’ of a few lines before.
c15.24
³ Mr. K. V. S. Aiyar thinks that Sundara Pāndya refused to accept the tribute from the Ceylonese king and seized him (Ancient Dekhan, p. 166). This is clearly wrong as the text says—‘இலங்கை காவலனை யிறைகொண்டருளி’. But what follows is read as ‘வருதிறை மறுத் தவங்கனை’ in the official text which looks so improbable; Mr. Gopinatha Rao's text has ‘வருதிறை மறுத்தவங்களை’ and if this is the correct reading, as very likely it is, அவன் must be taken to refer to the Pallava chieftain who is mentioned a little later and this is the construction adopted by Dr S. K. Aiyangar.
c15.25
⁴ The garland of victory (வாகை) which had in it margosa flowers from the groves of Uraiyūr (கோழி) was worn at Śrīrangam, not at Chidambaram, contra Dr. S. K. Aiyangar's translation.
c15.26
of 1892 ; Chitvā Kṣēmim in No. 52 of 1893. Also the title Kṣēmāsura-vidāraṇa-narasimha of Māravarman Vikrama Pāndya in his records beginning Samasta-bhuvanēkavīra, e.g., No. 122 of 1896. I am unable to identify this Kṣēma. A Sēuṇa king was the enemy of a Gaṇḍagōpāla (A.R.E., 1920, part ii, para 55.) The Sēuṇas were the Yādavas of Dēvagiri.
c15.27
many tulābhāras which pleased the eyes and hearts of all spectators and evoked many blessings from learned poets, and enriched Srirangam. And in that temple which he roofed with gold he sat upon a splendid throne with his queen, and wore a golden crown and emulated the morning sun rising on the top of the eastern hill¹.
c15.28
¹ The text is ‘மகிழ்ந்தினிதேறித் தினகரோதயமெனச் செழுங்கதிர் சொரியும் கனகமாமுடி’ and I am not able to see in this the proper name for the crown, Nagarōdaya, as is done by Dr. S. K. Aiyangar. Earlier we have உதயவெற்பனைத் திருவனர்குலமணிச்சிங்காசன மிசை.
c15.29
These incidents may now be discussed in the light of the other records of the reign. The conquest of the Chera country must have taken place very early in the reign. An inscription from Tinnevelly (No. 75 of 1927) dated in the third year of Tribhuvanacakravartin Kōnēr-inmai-konḍān gives the name Kavivenra-caturvēdimangalam for a village in the neighbourhood and a Vīra Ravi Udayamārttāṇḍavarman is known to have been ruling in Travancore in A.D. 1251.² It is just possible that the name of the village commemorates our king's victory over the Chera king.
c15.30
² See A.R.E., 1927, part ii, para 45. The record may also belong to Māravarman Kulaśēkhara and the evidence quoted is by no means conclusive.
c15.31
The campaign against the Chola king may be passed over as the Chola country in this period was practically a protectorate of the Hoysalas. The attack on Hoysala forces and the fate of the Hoysala commander Singaṇa are referred to in a Srirangam epigraph, where he is said to have been given over to a rutting elephant on the battlefield.³ The storming of the fortifications of Kaṇṇanūr-koppam and its occupation after the flight of the Hoysala king Vīra Sōmēśvara took place before the seventh year of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, i.e. before A.D. 1258. Though the Hoysalas were compelled to retreat and to accept defeat for a time, they evidently refused to give up their possessions in the Tamil country without a struggle, and there was perhaps much fighting of which we have no direct evidence now. The long Sanskrit inscription of Sundara Pāṇḍya from Śrīraṅgam opens with the statement that Sundara Pāṇḍya had just sent to the other world the Moon of the Karṇāṭa Country (Sōmēśvara) who had caused much trouble to Śrīraṅgam.¹ And another inscription of the fourteenth year (A.D. 1264-5) from Tiruppārkkaḍal, North Arcot (No. 702 of 1904) registers an order issued by Sundara Pāṇḍya from Kaṇṇanūr. The death of Sōmēśvara is generally placed about A.D. 1262 and Sundara Pāṇḍya seems therefore to have held Kaṇṇanūr continuously from the time he occupied it some time before his seventh year. And even after the death of Vīra Sōmēśvara, his successor Rāmanātha appears to have been mostly kept out of Kaṇṇanūr during Sundara Pāṇḍya’s time.²
c15.32
³ Sen Tamil, vol. iv, p. 496-60 of 1892.
c15.33
¹ E.I., vol. iii, pp. 11 and 14.
c15.34
² This seems the best way of explaining the reference to Rāmamahipati in the Śrīraṅgam record (No. 60 of 1892), cf. Hultzsch, A.R.E., 1892, para 7 and E.I., vol. iii, p. 9. Contra Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, op. cit., p. 49. See also A.R.E., 1911, part ii, para 47 and 1905, part ii, para 23.
c15.35
The relations with Ceylon may be reserved for consideration later. The conquest of Śēndamaṅgalam and the subjugation of its Pallava or Kāḍava chieftain is the last military success recorded in this epigraph. This chieftain was Kōpperuñjinga whose records are found as far north as Tripurāntakam (Kurnool) and Drākṣārāma (Godavari)³; he seems to have reckoned his regnal years from A.D. 1243.⁴ More than ten years earlier he had attempted the overthrow of his Chola suzerain, but this rebellion being suppressed by the intervention of Hoysala Vīra Narasimha II, he resumed his position as a feudatory of the Chola king Rāja Rāja III. In 1243-4 he assumed the titles ‘*dēva*’ (king) and *Sakaḷa-bhuvana-cakravartin* and apparently set himself up as an independent sovereign. Ten years later he claims to have defeated certain Daṇḍanāyakas of the Hoysala king in the battlefield at Perambalūr (Trichinopoly district) and seized their ladies and treasures.¹ The date of this record falls too early in the reign of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya for us to assume that this campaign of the Kāḍava king in Trichinopoly was undertaken in concert with the Pāndya emperor against the Hoysalas. On the other hand, in the Drākṣārāma record (No. 419 of 1893) dated in Saka 1184 (A.D. 1262) Kōpperunjinga claims to have aided in the establishment of the Pāndya empire. The records of Kōpperunjinga manifestly do not eschew hyperbole; but the campaign against the Hoysalas in Trichinopoly in A.D. 1252-3, if it was undertaken in concert with Sundara Pāndya, may be taken to furnish
c15.36
³ E.g. Nos. 198 of 1905 and 419 of 1893.
c15.37
⁴ E.I., vol. vii, p. 165. Attempts have sometimes been made to differentiate between two Kāḍava chieftains, father and son, and treat the father as
c15.38
¹ No. 73 of 1918 from Vriddhācalam and *A.R.E.*, 1925, part ii, para 26.
c15.39
the opponent of Rāja Rāja III, who figures in the Tiruvēndipuram inscription and the son as coming to power later in A.D. 1243 (*A.R.E.*, 1906, part ii, para 5). But there is no sufficient reason yet to depart from the position taken up by Hultzsch in editing the Tiruvēndipuram record (*E.I.*, vol. vii), and I am still inclined to assume only one Kāḍava chieftain Avaniyāḷappirandān Kōpperunjingadēva *alias* Avanyavanasambhava Mahārājasimha who was subordinate to the Cholas till A.D. 1243, then assumed independence and afterwards became tributary to the Pāndya kings after the campaign of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya against Sēndamangalam. Alagiya Śiyan Kōpperunjinga must be taken to mean Kōpperunjinga, the son of Alagiya Śiyan (*A.R.E.*, 1906, part ii, para 5). The Kōpperunjinga records are characterized by certain common features which are better accounted for on the hypothesis of Hultzsch than on any other, and there is nothing intrinsically improbable in a chieftain holding power from, say, A.D. 1229 at the earliest to about A.D. 1280 at the latest. The subject cannot be pursued further here.
c15.40
some basis for the boastful title assumed in the Drākṣārāma inscription.¹
c15.41
¹ The expression used is Pāndya-mandala-sthāpana-sūtra-dhārēna (E.I., vol. vii, 167, n. 5.)
c15.42
As a matter of fact, it is not easy to determine exactly the relations between Sundara Pāndya and Kōpperunjinga. If they were so friendly about A.D. 1253, it is difficult to see why Sundara Pāndya refused the tribute sent to him by the Kādava chieftain and attacked his capital with such fury and took possession of his kingdom and his army before finally restoring him to rule over his country. There is no doubt, however, that at this time Kōpperunjinga sustained a loss of status and became a subordinate tributary of the Pāndya emperor. Nearly fourteen years later the Kādava king is found remitting his tribute to the Pāndya king when he is camping in Chidambaram.²
c15.43
² No. 192 of 1914 of the fourteenth year of Jatāvarman Vīra Pāndya (A.R.E., 1915, part ii, para 36.)
c15.44
There is an undated record (No. 229 of 1925) from the Māyavaram taluq which says ‘that during the regime of Kōpperunjingadēva a certain Alagiya Pallavar alias Vīrapratāpar kept the Hoysalas in confinement and levied tribute from the Pāndyas.’ (A.R.E., 1925, part ii, para 26). It is not yet possible to say what exactly this means.
c15.45
An alternative reconstruction of the relations between Sundara Pāndya and Kōpperunjinga may be suggested. The campaign referred to in No. 73 of 1918 (Vriddhācalam) may be treated as an incident in the generally hostile relations between the Hoysalas and the rather ubiquitous Kōpperunjinga with which Sundara Pāndya had nothing to do. Then Sundara’s attack on Sēndamangalam will not need any special explanation (that is not forthcoming) as it will be part of his policy of imperial expansion (digvijaya). And the claim in the Drākṣārāma record may be based on Kōpperunjinga’s subordinate co-operation with Sundara Pāndya in his later campaigns during which, as a feudatory, he would have been bound to help Sundara Pāndya.
c15.46
Mr. K. V. S. Aiyar (Ancient Dekhan, pp. 167-8) supposes that Sundara Pāndya and Kōpperunjinga continued to be friendly to the end and that the campaign against Sēndamangalam was fought against the Hoysalas and for the sake of Kōpperunjinga. But in doing so he seems to have overlooked the guidance furnished by the Sanskrit inscriptions of Sundara Pāndya, Kāthakakari-kūtapākala in the Samastajagad introduction;
c15.47
Thus, before the seventh year of his reign, Sundara Pāndya extended his sway over Travancore, and the modern districts of Trichinopoly (including Pudukottah), Tanjore and South Arcot. There were other successes achieved about the same time or soon after that are mentioned in the Sanskrit introduction beginning *Samastajagadādhāra* which appears as early as the seventh year of the reign (No. 260 of 1906) and in other records. There is no possibility at present of determining the order in which these expeditions were undertaken by the king.¹ He is said to have subjugated the Magadai country, a name applied in mediæval records to portions of Salem and Arcot districts, and it is quite possible that this was done in the course of the war against the Hoysalas and Kōpperunjinga.² The conquest of the Kongu country must have also resulted from the same campaigns, and there is very good reason to believe that the modern districts of Salem and Coimbatore formed part of the Pāndya empire for some time after Sundara Pāndya’s reign.³ Lastly, Sundara Pāndya
c15.48
¹ Dr. S. K. Aiyangar (*op. cit.*, p. 50 and n. 1) follows the order in which events are mentioned in a Sanskrit inscription from Tiruppuṭkuḷi (= No. 52 of 1893 from Kāñchīpuram); but there appears no particular reason for accepting this order as against others, say, that in No. 182 of 1892 from Chidambaram.
c15.49
² *Udgamavya Magadham* in 52 of 1893. For the extent of Magadai-maṇḍalam see *A.R.E.*, 1925, part ii, para 42.
c15.50
³ See *Sen Tamil*, vol. iv, p. 493; *A.R.E.*, 1906, part ii, para 27. In the same report in paragraph 38 the records of Vira Rāmanātha and Vira Viśvanātha found in Salem and Coimbatore districts are taken to be evidence of a reconquest of this region by the Hoysalas. But the fact must be interpreted in the light of the Pāndya records found in these districts. *Contra* Hultzsch, *E.I.*, vol. iii, p. 11.
c15.51
*Kāthaka nrpah prādhvamsi* (No. 182 of 1892), *Bhanktvā Kāthakadurgam* (No. 52 of 1893), *Ghōradvāiratha-khinna-kāthaka-purī-sampat-samākar-ṣinā* of the Śrīrangam Inscription (*E.I.*, vol. iii, p. 7) and a Tamil verse among the Chidambaram inscriptions (*Sen Tamil*, vol. iv, p. 492) show beyond doubt that the Kādava chieftain was the enemy in the Sēndamangalam campaign.
c15.52
claims to have killed Gaṇḍagōpāla, occupied Kāñchīpuram, defeated Gaṇapati the Kākatīya king, and performed a *Vīrābhiṣeka* in Nellore. This is confirmed by some inscriptions (Nos. 332, 340 and 361 of 1913) from Chidambaram which contain Tamil verses stating that Sundara Pāndya ‘inflicted a severe defeat on the Telungas at Muḍugūr, slaughtering them and their allies, the Aryas, right up to the bank of the Pērāru and driving the Bāna chief into the forest.’¹ All these references are apparently to various occurrences in the course of a single campaign against the ‘northern kings’, and if that be so, the reference to Gaṇapati would mean that the campaign was undertaken some time before A.D. 1260. The enemy against whom the campaign was primarily directed was Gaṇḍagōpāla, a Telugu-Choḍa ruler who was in possession of Nellore and Kāñchīpuram. The Bāna chieftain and the Kākatīya king were perhaps the allies of Gaṇḍagōpāla whom Sundara Pāndya did not pursue after they were repulsed in battle. Gaṇḍagōpāla was however ‘sent to the other world’, as an inscription from Chidambaram records, and his territory was annexed to the Pāndya empire and entrusted to his brothers who were apparently to rule as feudatories of the Pāndya sovereign.²
c15.53
¹ A.R.E., 1914, part ii, para 18.
c15.54
² *Sen Tamil*, vol. iv, p. 493. The identification of Gaṇḍagōpāla and of the Aryan allies of the Telungas presents considerable difficulty. For the Aryas, see Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, *op. cit*, p. 49, n. 4; also the reference given in the preceding note. It is not clear why Prof. S. K. Aiyangar says ‘the Aryar are referred to in connection with the Hoysalas in all the three references to them we have.’ I have tentatively assumed that it is a reference to Gaṇapati and his forces which aided Gaṇḍagōpāla. From the expression *Viragaṇḍagōpāla-vipina-dāva-dahana* in the Sanskrit introduction, it has been assumed (e.g. *A.R.E.*, 1916, part ii, para 81 and Appendix G) that the opponent of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya was Vīragaṇḍagōpāla. But, the Tamil record speaks only of Gaṇḍagōpāla
c15.55
The wars of Sundara Pāndya resulted in such an extension of his power that he assumed the imperial titles Mahārājādhirāja-śrīparamēśvara and Emmandal-amum-kondaruliya. They also brought him a vast treasure which he employed in beautifying the temples at Chidambaram and Srirangam and endowing liberally these two famous shrines of Śiva and Visnu. At Chidambaram Sundara Pāndya is said to have performed several tulabhāras and erected a ‘Golden Hall’ for Lord Natarāja.¹ His gifts to the Śrīrangam temple and his building of parts of it are recorded in a long Sanskrit inscription which Hultzsch has summarized in the following words:² ‘He built a shrine of Narasimha and another of Visnu’s attendant Visvaksēna both of which were covered with gold, and a gilt tower which contained an image of Narasimha. Further he covered the (original or central) shrine of the temple with gold, an achievement of which he must have been specially proud, as he assumed with reference to it the surname Hemācchādana Rāja i.e., “the king who covered the temple with gold”, and as he placed in the shrine a golden image of Visnu which he called after his own new surname. He also covered the inner wall
c15.56
¹ Nos. 179 and 182 of 1892.
c15.57
² E.I., vol. iii, p. 11.
c15.58
(வீக்கியவன் கழற்கண்ட கோபாலனை விண்ணுலகிற் போக்கி) and it is quite possible that Vira in the Sanskrit expression is not an integral part of the name. At any rate Viragandagōpāla of Kānchipuram (the son of Vijayagandagōpāla) who came to power about A.D. 1290 could not have been Sundara Pāndya’s opponent. And it seems likely that by disposing of his enemy Gandagōpāla, the Pāndya became master both of Kānchipuram and of Nellore and if this assumption is confirmed by further evidence, it is quite possible that Sundara Pāndya’s enemy was the most famous of the Gandagōpālas, the first of the four mentioned in A.R.E., 1920, part ii, para 53. See Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty, Nellore Inscriptions, (vol. iii, pp. 1432-3) on Gandagōpāla alias Allun Tirukālattidēva who was ruling in 1254-5 at Kānchi and Nellore.
c15.59
of the central shrine with gold and built, in front of it, a dining hall, which he equipped with golden vessels. In the month of Caitra he celebrated the "procession festival" of the God. For the "festival of God's sporting with Lakṣmi" he built a golden ship. The last verse of the inscription states that the king built three golden domes over the image of Hemācchādana-Rāja-Hari, over that of Garuḍa, and over the hall which contained the couch of Viṣṇu. The following miscellaneous gifts to Ranganātha are enumerated in the inscription:— A garland of emeralds, a crown of jewels, a golden image of Śēṣa, a golden arch, a pearl garland, a canopy of pearls, different kinds of golden fruits, a golden car, a golden trough, a golden image of Garuḍa, a golden under-garment, a golden aureola, a golden pedestal, ornaments of jewels, a golden armour, golden vessels and a golden throne. The first of the gifts which are here enumerated, appears to have suggested the surname *Marakataprthvībhṛt*, i.e., the emerald king which is applied to Sundara Pāndya in *verse 13.* And this garland of emeralds was seized from the Kāṭhaka (Kādava) king Kōpperunjinga (*verse 4*). Occasionally there are recorded in the inscriptions of this reign gifts to *pallīs*¹ and other religious institutions outside the pale of orthodox Hinduism, and this, taken along with the king's liberal and impartial patronage of the shrines of Śiva and Viṣṇu, may be accepted as some indication of peace in the religious life of the country.
c15.60
¹ E. g. 358 of 1908.
c15.61
The epigraphs of this reign contain more direct references to the personal qualities of the monarch than is common in mediæval Pāndya records. His love of splendour and display is seen in the *abhiṣēkas* (coronations) he held at Nellore and Śrīrangam and in the repeated tulābhāras on various occasions at Chidambaram and Śrīrangam.¹ Almost every verse in the Ranganātha inscription is calculated to impress this trait of the king on its readers, and he is repeatedly spoken of as ‘the Sun’ in expressions like Rājasūrya, Rāja-tapana, Kṣiti-pati Ravi, etc. Some of the inscriptions from Chidambaram bestow special praise on the king’s personal courage in battle and on his skill in capturing fortresses.² That he gloried in the extent of his empire may be inferred from his title Kanchīpura-Varadhīśvara in his Sanskrit introduction, corresponding to Kanchīpuram Kondan of some Tamil records (No. 64 of 1927). Sundara Pāndya was very proud of the golden roofs he had made for the gods at Chidambaram and Śrīrangam, and set up images called Kōyilponmēyndaperumāl in different parts of the realm in commemoration of the act and instituted special festivals to the images every month on the day of Mūla, the asterism of the king’s birth.³ After his extensive conquests he assumed the surname Ellāndalaiyānān (became lord of all), issued coins with that legend, and instituted in temples special festivals called after this name.⁴ The name Kōdandarāma does not seem to have been borne by this king, but by a later Sundara Pāṇḍya.¹
c15.62
¹ Dr. S. K. Aiyangar’s statements that the king mounted on an elephant and weighed himself against gold and jewels is based on the Kōil-olugu; as also his reference to the queen Cherakulavalli. The ‘elephant-feature’ is not confirmed by the epigraph he quotes in the note at p. 52 op. cit.
c15.63
² Nos. 178 and 179 of 1892.
c15.64
³ See e.g. 531 of 1920 and A.R.E., 1921, part ii, para 41.
c15.65
⁴ See Hultzsch in I.A., vol. xxi, p. 324, for the coins; also No. 277 of 1913 and A.R.E., 1914, part ii, para 18 for the festival; also A.R.E., 1913, part ii, para 44; A.R.E., 1922, part ii, para 37 appears to be mistaken both in denying the title Ellāndalaiyānān to the king and in ascribing the other title Ranasingarāksasa to him. The inscriptions 328 and 329 of 1921 are both Kōnērinmaikondan records which do not seem to sustain the inferences made by the epigraphist in the paragraph referred to above. The summary of the records in Appendix B makes this clear. The Sundara Pāndya Dēvar who set up the image mentioned in No. 328 may be a later king.
c15.66
¹ *Contra* K. V. S. Aiyar, *Ancient Dekhan*, p. 167. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, *op. cit.*, p. 53 and *A.R.E.*, 1921, part ii, para 41. Mr. Aiyar refers to two facts in support of his view—(1) that the king is called a second Rāma in plundering the island of Ceylon and (2) stone epigraphs providing for the Kodaṇḍarāman-śandi. The king is called a second Rāma, *not* Kōdaṇḍarāma and the stone epigraphs referred to are Konērinmaikoṇḍān records, none of which necessarily belongs to the present ruler. It will be seen later that the name was taken by Sundara Pāṇḍya who began to rule *c.* A.D. 1302-3.
c15.67
Two princes are referred to in some records which certainly belong to the time of this Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, but their relation to the king is not quite clear. One of them is Kulaśēkhara, who is called *Annalvi* in records of the ninth and tenth years of our king,² and is perhaps identical with the Kulaśēkhara for whose merit a *mandapa* was erected in Tiruppuṭkuli by a minor chieftain or an official who called himself Pallavādhīśvara.³ It is possible that the reference in all these cases is to Jaṭāvarman Kulaśēkhara II, as the expressions *Kṣitipa* and *Perumāl* are used in the Tiruppuṭkuli epigraph. The other person mentioned in the records of Sundara Pāṇḍya is a Vikrama Pāṇḍya who is referred to as *Nāyaṇār* and in whose name a new village was founded in the thirteenth year of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya.⁴ It has been suggested that a Māravarman Vikrama Pāṇḍya was ruling about this time with an initial date of about A.D. 1249 and if that was so, he might be the *Nāyaṇār* referred to. But more proof is required than is yet available before this suggestion can be finally accepted.⁵
c15.68
² Nos. 425 and 426 of 1913 and *A.R.E.*, 1914, part ii, para 19.
c15.69
³ No. 19 of 1899.
c15.70
⁴ Nos. 277 and 278 of 1913 and *A.R.E.*, 1914, part ii, para 20. It is doubtful if No. 90 of 1897 from Mannārguḍi (Tanjore) in the twelfth year of a Jaṭāvarman Sundara which mentions a *Vikrama Pāṇḍyan Maṇḍapam* is a reference to the same Vikrama. Rangachari, p. 1295.
c15.71
⁵ See *A.R.E.*, 1918, part ii, para 45.
c15.72
It is not possible to say exactly when the reign of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya closed. The latest regnal year mentioned in records¹ with the Sanskrit introduction characteristic of the king seems to be the nineteenth, which will take us to A.D. 1269-70. He might have reigned a little longer; in any case there is clear evidence that the reign of this illustrious ruler did not close before the next great monarch Māravarman Kulaśēkhara came to power.
c15.73
¹ E. g. 198 of 1906. Mr. K. V. S. Aiyar says, ‘The last year of this illustrious Pāndya sovereign takes us to A.D. 1271’ (op. cit. p. 168); Dr. S. K. Aiyangar says his ‘rule perhaps lasted on to his twenty-third or twenty-fourth regnal year’. No references are given by either. No. 481 of 1918 is in year seven plus twenty-five of a Jaṭāvarman Tribhuvanacakravartin Ellārkku-Nāyanār Sundara Pāndya Dēva.
c15.74
that Vīra Pāndya ‘fought with the Chola king a battle at Kāvikkalam, killed (in fight) one of the two kings of Ceylon, captured his army, chariots, treasures, throne, crown, necklaces, bracelets, parasols, chauris and other royal possessions, planted the Pāndya flag with the double fish on the Kōnamalai and the high peaks of the Trikūtagiri mountain, and received elephants as tribute from the other king of Ceylon (whom, perhaps, he raised to the throne).’ Lastly the introduction refers to the king’s settlement of his relations with a Śāvan-maindan (சாவன்மைந்தன்) who was at first recalcitrant but submitted afterwards. It is possible that these facts are implied also in the attribute given to Vīra Pāndya in an inscription in his tenth year which says ‘he took the crown and the crowned head of Śāvaka’. But the meaning of these references is by no means clear yet.¹ However, most of these campaigns must be the same as those mentioned in the records of Jatāvarman Sundara Pāndya, and if the statements in these introductions of Vīra Pāndya are true, there can be no doubt that Vīra played a decisive part in some of the most important achievements in Sundara Pāndya’s reign. The conquest of Ceylon narrated in such detail is not mentioned in any records dated earlier than the tenth year of Vīra Pāndya. It should, however, be remembered
c15.75
¹ There is only one text of this important record (Pudukkottai, No. 366) and in it the reference is in the following words (ll. 11-12)—‘ப[ண்]டெவல் செய்யா திகல்செய் திருந்தசாவன் மைந்தன் நனயிருந் திறைஞ்ச வீரக்கழல்வி ரலரைச் (கு)ட்டித் திருக்கோளம் அலைவாப் படன்கழித்து வழங்கி அருளி முழங்குகளை றெறி பார் முழுதறிய ஊர்வ(ல)ஞ் (செ)ய்வித்து தந்தை மர பன் நினைப்பிட்ட ரெசிடமகிந்து ஆனூர் புரிச்சவி ரெயச்செல்கென்(வி)டை கொடுத்தருளி.’ No. 588 of 1916 from Karisundamangalam (Tinnevelly) does not mention the conquest of Kongu but refers to the taking of the crown and the crowned head of Sāvaka. ‘Probably the land of Sāvaka might have been intended’—A.R.E., 1917, part ii, para 11.
c15.76
JATĀVARMAN VĪRA PĀNDYA
c15.77
that Sundara Pāndya is said to have collected a tribute of jewels and elephants from the Ceylonese before the seventh year of his reign, that is, before A.D. 1258. The Ceylonese chronicles have nothing to tell of these transactions and it is not possible to determine how there came to be two kings in Ceylon and why one of them was selected by Vīra Pāndya for more favourable treatment than the other. As for the places mentioned in connection with this expedition, it has been suggested that Kōnamalai is very probably the same as Tirukkōnamalai in the *Tevāram* and that Trikūṭagiri is the name applied to a three-peaked mountain in the Kandiyan country.¹ Kāvikkalam, the scene of the fight with the Chola, in which elephants appear to have played a decisive part (*vēlappōr*), is not easy to identify. The only known Chola ruler of the time, Rājēndra III, boasts of having taken the crowned heads of two Pāndyas (No. 515 of 1922).
c15.78
¹ A.R.E., 1912, part ii, para 39.
c15.79
Vīra Pāndya’s conquest of Kongu is proved by the presence of a few of his records in the Coimbatore district.² Who the Vallān was that was overcome by Vīra Pāndya before his coronation at Chidambaram, who the Vaḍugas were whose stronghold he destroyed, and where that stronghold was, are matters which, like many others relating to the history of the Pāndya kings of this period, must be left unexplained in the present state of
c15.80
² A.R.E., 1923, part ii, para 68 and No. 35 of 1923 from Iḍigarai. It is an interesting fact that this damaged record contains the well-known Sanskrit introduction *Samasta-bhuvanaikavīra* usually attributed to Māravarman Vikrama Pāndya who is taken to have begun to rule some years later. It seems possible that the introduction originally belonged to Vīra Pāndya and was subsequently appropriated by Vikrama Pāndya. (*A.R.E.*, 1914, part ii, para 20.)
Linked texts (1)
- தேவாரம் — Tiruñāṉacampantar & Tirunāvukkaracar, Tamil