The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c16: Chapter XII. Jaṭāvarman Vīra Pāṇḍya (acc. A.D. 1253)—Māravarman Kulaśekhara (acc. A.D. 1268)

The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c16

Language: English

Chapter XII. Jaṭāvarman Vīra Pāṇḍya (acc. A.D. 1253)—Māravarman Kulaśekhara (acc. A.D. 1268)

BEFORE we give an account of the times of Māravarman Kulaśekhara, another ruler who was contemporary with Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya for the greater part of his reign must be noticed. This is Jaṭāvarman Vīra Pāndya who takes credit for some of the successes won during the time of Jaṭāvarman Sundara, and who perhaps carried out several expeditions under the direction of that monarch. There are a considerable number of inscriptions that can definitely be ascribed to this Vīra Pāndya, and some of these indicate that he began his rule some time about the middle of A.D. 1253¹ and continued to rule for at least twenty-two years till say A.D. 1274-5.² It is not possible to fix the area of Vīra Pāndya’s rule from the provenance of his inscriptions; though most of them come from Tinnevelly, Madura and Ramnad districts and the Pudukottah state, we have stray records from other places like Kānchīpuram (No. 483 of 1919) and Coimbatore.¹ We have in fact no means of knowing what exactly was the position of Vīra Pāndya and rulers like him, ‘co-regents’ as they have been called, and how the administration of the empire was regulated.

c16.4

¹ Kielhorn and Sewell fix the accession between June 20 and July 4, A.D. 1253 (I.A., vol. xliv, p. 196). Mr. L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai thought that Kielhorn’s Vīra Pāndya was a Māravarman and that Jaṭāvarman Vīra Pāndya was another king who began his rule in A.D. 1254 (I.A., vol. xlii). According to Sewell the only inscription which seems to support this view is No. 395 of 1909 and in it Māravarman is a mistake for Jaṭāvarman, as the achievements recorded in the epigraph are the same as those of Jaṭāvarman (I.A., vol. xliv, p. 194 and n. 16). The final position of the author of the *Indian Ephemeris* on this question is far from clear. He seems to postulate three Jaṭāvarman Vīra Pāndyas with accession dates in A.D. 1253, 1254 and 1280, and says also: ‘but this inference is not yet established by indubitable proof’ (vol. i, part ii, pp. 95-7). Elsewhere he refers 395 of 1909 to a Māravarman Vīra Pāndya of a later century (Pudukottah inscription No. 454.)

c16.5

² No. 128 of 1908 gives the twenty-second year, A.D. 1275, (Sewell).

c16.6

¹ No. 35 of 1923 and *A.R.E.*, 1923, part ii, para 68. Nos. 299 and 302 of 1919 from North Arcot.

c16.7

The records of Jaṭāvarman Vīra Pāndya begin in one of three ways. The simplest form (e.g. 185 of 1895) gives the Jaṭāvarman and Tribhuvanacakravartin titles and refers to the conquests of Īlam, Kongu and the Chola kingdom, and the victory over Vallān and the *abhiṣeka* at Chidambaram before mentioning the king’s name and regnal year. A slightly more elaborate form refers in like manner to the conquest of Kongu and Īlam, to the destruction of a hill (*kōḍu*) of the fierce Vaḍugas, the capture of the two banks of the Ganges (?) and the Kāvēri, and the camping of the king in Chidambaram to collect the tribute from the Kādava and perform the *abhiṣeka*.² The most ostentatious of these introductions begins with the words *Tirumagaḷ Vaḷar* (திருமகள்வளர்) and, while attributing incredible feats to Vīra Pāndya, seems to record some interesting particulars of the actual expeditions undertaken by the king against the Chola country and Ceylon. We learn from this introduction³ title ‘who took all countries’ had begun to rule, as his numerous records point to some day between the tenth and twenty-seventh June, A.D. 1268 as the date from which his regnal years were counted.¹ It is thus seen that there were at least three kings, Sundara Pāndya, Vīra Pāndya and Kulaśēkhara, at this time. It will become clear from what follows that this feature marked the whole of Kulaśēkhara’s reign and perhaps also the period that followed. A Māravarman Vikrama Pāndya, two Jatāvarman Sundara Pāndyas and a Jatāvarman Vīra Pāndya are known to have ruled with Māravarman Kulaśēkhara at different times, and there were possibly others like Māravarman Srīvallabha (acc. A.D. 1257) and Jatāvarman Srīvallabha (acc. A.D. 1291) whose existence, though probable, has not been proved beyond doubt.² The evidence of foreign writers relating to this period confirms the inferences made from the inscriptions. Marco Polo, who visited part of the Pāndya kingdom towards the end of the thirteenth century, speaks of ‘five royal brothers’ and ‘five crowned kings’ of this ‘great province of Ma’bar’. Chinese sources regarding the diplomatic intercourse with Ma’bar in 1280 and the following years mention ‘the five brothers who were Sultans'.¹ The Muhammadan historian Wassaf who had chances of gaining a more accurate knowledge of South India in his day says, 'A few years since the Dewar was Sundara Pandi, who had three brothers, each of whom established himself in independence in some different country.'² Considering the royal state maintained by these kings who were all contemporaries, it is not surprising that they struck foreign observers as ruling independently of one another; for not only did they cause inscriptions to be engraved and endowments to be made each in his own name but they seem to have even exercised the right of coinage. At the same time there is no doubt about the superior position of Kulaśēkhara as the sovereign monarch, and this seems to have been understood by Marco Polo and Wassaf. Marco Polo says that Ashar 'was the eldest of the five brother kings'; Ashar (Asciar in another version) is no doubt a corruption of Śēkhar.³ And Wassaf though he states in one place 'a few years since the Dewar was Sundar Pandi' and records his death, says elsewhere 'Kales Dewar, the ruler of Ma'bar enjoyed a highly prosperous life, extending to forty and odd years'.⁴ The system of joint-rulers or co-regents which thus prevailed in the latter part of the thirteenth century in the our knowledge.¹ The tributary and subordinate position in the Pāndya Empire of the rebellious Kādava chieftain, Kōpperunjingadēva, has been mentioned before.

c16.8

² This form appears in Pudukottah Nos. 370 and 379 of which 379 = No. 131 of 1907 (Madras). The words in the text must be quoted as there is some uncertainty as to the interpretation—‘கொங்கேழங் கொண்டு கொடுவேடு கோடழித்து கங்கை யிருகரையுங் காவிரியுங் கைக்கொண்டு.’ The difficulty lies in the phrase கங்கையிருகரையும். *A.R.E.*, 1912, part ii, para 39 makes this a conquest of Gangai-nāḍu and at *A.R.E.*, 1915, part ii, para 36 the phrase seems to be ignored altogether.

c16.9

³ The summary is in *A.R.E.*, 1912, part ii, para 39. Text in Pudukottah, No. 366. The words at the end of the summary in *A.R.E.*, 1912 ‘and subdued the Kēraḷa’ do not seem to be borne out by the Pudukottah text.

c16.10

¹ I.A., vol. xliv and E. I., vol. x, p. 141. Kielhorn’s view that this Kulaśēkhara was the immediate successor of Vīra Pāndya, the conqueror of Ilam and Kongu, has now to be given up in view of records subsequently discovered.

c16.11

² Mr. L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai first discovered the possibility of their existence and Mr. Sewell after a careful examination of his data wanted further evidence before the existence of these kings could be taken as proved. (I.A., vols. xlii and xliv) Mr. Swamikkannu Pillai also postulated a Sundara Pāndya (Jatāvarman) with accession date in A.D. 1270 (I.A., vol. xlii), but subsequently gave him up (List of Pudukkottai Inscriptions, p. 66 n). The Indian Ephemeris, however, introduces a Māravarman Sundara Pāndya acc. A.D. 1270 (vol. i, part ii, p. 101). These instances show how difficult the chronology of these kings still continues to be.

c16.12

¹ Yule and Cordier, *Travels of Marco Polo*, vol. ii, pp. 331, 337, 371. Marco Polo has a strange travellers' story about the mother of these kings being alive at the time of his visit, and her throwing herself between them to prevent their fighting. 'In this way she, full many a time, brought them to desist. But when she dies it will most assuredly happen that they will fall out and destroy one another' (p. 371).

c16.13

² *Elliot and Dowson*, vol. iii, p. 32.

c16.14

³ Yule and Cordier, *op. cit.*, vol. ii, p. 370 and Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, *South India and Her Muhammadan Invaders*, p. 56.

c16.15

⁴ *Elliot and Dowson*, vol. iii, p. 52. It may be mentioned that the *Mahāvaṃśa* (see later in the chapter) also knows of 'five brethren' of whom Kulaśēkhara was chief.

c16.16

¹ Vallān has sometimes been taken to be the king of the Chola country (A.R.E., 1907, part ii, para 27). But the conquest of Vallān is always mentioned as a separate event which occurred after the capture of Cholamandalam thus, ‘ஈழமுங்கொங்கும் சோழமண்டலமுங்கொண்டு வல்லானைவென்று தில்லைமாநகரியுள்,’ etc. The Vadugas are taken to be Kanarese (A.R.E., 1915, part ii, para 36). They might as well have been Telugus to whom the name is more commonly applied by the Tamils.

c16.17

The records of Vīra Pāndya are of more than usual interest for a study of the social and economic conditions of the country during this period. Though the more detailed study of such conditions has been reserved to a later chapter some of these records may be briefly noticed here. One inscription from the Pudukottah state (No. 372 of 1906) throws much light on judicial methods and describes an ordeal of the plough-share; another from Kurrālam (Tinnevelly) registers a transaction between an individual and the assembly of Tirukkuttālam which is stated to have met together in Tirumukkālvattam, by which is probably meant a hall where it usually held its sittings. ‘No. 432 of 1917 records that the village assembly bought a piece of land from the people of Sundara Pāndyapuram and let a portion of it on permanent lease to a certain Ānda Pillai in exchange for a fixed annual rent in paddy and money on every mā (மா) of cultivated land.’ It was also stipulated that the lessee would pay on every mā of waste plot that he brought under cultivation an annually progressive rate of rent for the first four years and a fixed rate thereafter.² Two epigraphs from the North Arcot district (Āvūr, Nos. 299 and 302 of 1919) contain details of kadamai assessment in that part of the country. A series of inscriptions (Nos. 540 to 543 of 1911) from Śērmādēvi gives an idea of the procedure that appears to have been usually followed in making gifts to temples of lands freed from all taxes and other assessments. Lastly, an epigraph (No. 598 of 1926) from the Ramnad district states that a large and representative assembly was convoked for the purpose of raising funds for building a stone temple in the place of a dilapidated old masonry temple. The people of eighteen provinces (viṣayam) attended and came to an agreement that on all articles of merchandise that were measured, spread and folded and on some other specified goods, a cess of one kāśu per achchu should be collected. And among the corporations that attended the meeting and became parties to the agreement were the Valanjiyar of South Ceylon, Anjuvaṇṇam and Maṇigrāmam,--all names of self-regulating corporations of different classes of merchants.¹ The currency of the realm seems to have comprised different varieties of coins, and people had to take care to specify the type of coin to which each transaction had reference, like Paḷam-Śōḷiyan-Kāśu, Vīra-Pāṇḍyan Kāśu, etc.²

c16.18

² A.R.E., 1918, part ii, para 48.

c16.19

¹ A.R.E., 1927, part ii, paras 46-8. At paragraph 48 the epigraphist expresses his opinion that 'it is possible that at Tittāṇḍatānapuram which is only a few miles distant from Toṇḍi, there may have also been a Muhammadan colony which had banded itself into an Anjuvaṇṇam (Anjuman) association'. It is rather strange that this reference to an Anjuvaṇṇam, which agreed to help to build a temple, should not have convinced him that Anjuvaṇṇam had nothing whatever to do with Anjuman. Venkayya's elucidation of these terms which I have followed is found in E.I., vol. iv, pp. 293-4 and n. 2 at p. 296. Note particularly that one of their privileges was: 'Should they themselves commit a crime, they are themselves to have the investigation of it' (p. 294). See also T. A. Gopinatha Rao in Trav. Arch. Series, vol. ii, pp. 73-5.

c16.20

² No. 131 of 1907 and A.R.E., 1912, part ii, para 39.

c16.21

In the last years of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, Māravarman Kulaśēkhara who, like Sundara, bears the Pāndya empire must have been the result of the great extension of the empire during this period and an imitation of the practice of sending out princes of the royal family as viceroys which had prevailed in the Chola empire.

c16.22

The inscriptions of Māravarman Kulaśēkhara ‘who conquered all countries’ are very numerous and found mostly in the eastern Tamil districts and the regnal years mentioned in them range from 3 to 44. A few of these records begin with a historical introduction ‘Tēr Pōi etc.’ which is not of much value as most of it is poetry. The only definite statements made in it are that the tiger of the Cholas had been sent to rule the forests, that all religions flourished in friendly toleration of one another and that the rulers of various countries brought their tributes to the king.¹ We also learn that the king had a palace at Jayangondaśōlapuram and that the king’s throne in the palace was called Kalingarāyan. This is clear proof that the Cholas had ceased to exist as a power. The last of them who made any attempt to save the Chola line from annihilation was Rājēndra III and he had probably ceased to rule when Māravarman Kulaśēkhara came to the throne.¹ An epigraph from Śērmādēvi (No. 692 of 1916) dated in the twentieth year of the king furnishes some commentary on his title and mentions that he conquered the Malaināḍu, Śōṉāḍu, the two Kongus, Iḷam and Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam. These are probably references to campaigns rendered necessary on account of some local trouble or other, for most of the territories mentioned had been brought under subjection by Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya and Vīra Pāṇḍya.

c16.23

¹ Nos. 25 of 1891 and 465 of 1909 of the years ten and four respectively. Mr. Krishna Sastri (at A.R.E., 1910, part ii, para 36) holds that ‘it is certain that he (Kulaśēkhara of No. 465 of 1909) could not be identical with Māravarman Kulaśēkhara I, “who was pleased to take every country”’. His reasons are: (a) Kulaśēkhara ‘who conquered every country’ is not known to have had any eulogy in the form of a historical introduction; (b) the mention of the chief officer Kalingarāyan in the record makes it probable that this Māravarman Kulaśēkhara was a contemporary or successor of Jatāvarman Śrivallabha; and (c) the historical introduction was characteristic of the records of the first kings of the mediæval Pāndyas. Reasons (a) and (c) simply beg the question. As for (b), Mr. Krishna Sastri himself ascribes another record No. 366 of 1913 to Kulaśēkhara ‘who took all countries’ for the very reason that it mentions Kalingarāyan (A.R.E., 1914, part ii, para 22). That No. 465 of 1909 does not give the title ‘who took all countries’ is no argument against its being ascribed to the king; for when there is a characteristic introduction to a record, the king’s surnames may or may not appear. See Jatāvarman Sundara’s records beginning Pūmalar Valar. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar ascribes No. 465 of 1909 to our king—op. cit., pp. 56 and 221.

c16.24

¹ See *A.R.E.*, 1912, part ii, para 32 and 1923, part ii, para 45. Also Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, *op. cit.*, pp. 56 and 94-5.

c16.25

Rather early in his reign the king went on an expedition against the Travancore country (Malaināḍu) and one of the chief incidents in the campaign was probably the capture of Kollam (Quilon). Some records of the king from the Tinnevelly district confirm the conquest, rather the reconquest, of Malaināḍu, and give the titles *Cheranai-veṉra* and *Kollam-koṇḍa*.² That Kulaśēkhara continued to be in undisputed possession of the Śōṉāḍu and Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam is proved by the presence of many of his inscriptions in all the important places in these districts. In spite of Kulaśēkhara's claim to have conquered the two Kongus, no records of his are found in the Kongu country. On the other hand, a record from Tinnevelly (No. 29 of 1927) mentions³ that Kulaśēkhara built a *prākāra* wall of the Tinnevelly temple from the booty collected after defeating the Kēraḷa, the Chola and the Hoysala kings. Another inscription mentions that the king was in his camp at Kaṇṇanūr in his fifteenth year.¹ We also find records of Kulaśēkhara's co-regent Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya (acc. A.D. 1276) in the Kongu country, and later still, early in the fourteenth century, the Muhammadan historians tell us of a Pāndya ruler with his headquarters at Kalūl (Karūr).² All these facts leave little room for doubt that the Kongu country was more or less effectively controlled by the Pāndya rulers till the end of Kulaśēkhara's reign.

c16.26

² *Cheranai-veṉra* occurs as early as the eighth year in No. 126 of 1907. For the rest see *A.R.E.*, 1927, part ii, para 42, where the reference to No. 120 of 1908 is perhaps a mistake.

c16.27

³ This record is assigned to Jaṭāvarman Kulaśēkhara *acc.* A.D. 1190 in *A.R.E.*, 1927, part ii, para 41; but that period is too early for a Pāṇḍya king who claims to have beaten the Hoysalas.

c16.28

¹ No. 328 of 1923 summarized in *A.R.E.*, 1924, part ii, para 35. There were however several places of the name Kaṇṇanūr. There is a reference to Kaṇṇāṭṭarasar in No. 20 of 1912 (from the Tinnevelly district) of the fourth year. This led Mr. Krishna Sastri (*A.R.E.*, 1912, part ii, para 35) to believe that the Hoysalas under Vīra Rāmanātha were still occupying the Tamil country and interfering with the Pāndyas. In the absence of the text of the inscription it is not possible to check the validity of Mr. Sastri's inference; but it is against the general trend of affairs after the accession of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāndya (A.D. 1251).

c16.29

² Wassaf in *Elliot and Dowson*, vol. iii, p. 54.

c16.30

The conquest of Ceylon is borne out by the *Mahāvamśa* and appears to have taken place about A.D. 1284, when Parākrama Bāhu III was ruling the island.³ ‘Then there arose a famine in the land (Ceylon). Then the five brethren who governed the Pāndyan kingdom sent to this island, at the head of an army, a great minister of much power who was a chief among the Tamils known as Ariya Cakkavatti, albeit he was not an Ariya. And when he had landed and laid waste the country on every side he entered the great and noble fortress, the city of Subhagiri. And he took the venerable tooth-relic and all the solid wealth that was there and returned to the Pāṇdyan 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 Pāṇdyan kings'.¹ The commander of the Pāṇdyan forces mentioned in this account, Ariya Cakravarti, is referred to also in an inscription (No. 110 of 1903) of the king in his thirty-seventh year as taking his orders from him.² Parākrama Bāhu had to bow before the storm and the Mahāvamśa says that he adopted persuasive methods with the Pāṇdya monarch, visited the Pāṇdyan court and succeeded in inducing Kulaśēkhara to surrender the sacred tooth as a favour.

c16.31

³ *J.R.A.S.*, 1913, p. 531. It is likely that the actual Pāndyan invasion of Ceylon was in the reign of his predecessor. (*Mahāvamśa*, xc, vv. 48-50.)

c16.32

¹ Mahāvamśa, xc; Turnour and Wijesinha, part ii, pp. 314-5.

c16.33

² Dr. S. K. Aiyangar appears to be right in pointing out as against Mr. K. V. S. Aiyar (see Aiyangar op. cit., pp. 57-8 and Aiyar, Ancient Dekhan, pp.170-1) that the Āriya Cakravarti was not a Muhammadan but a Tamil.

c16.34

Wassaf says of Kulaśēkhara's reign that 'during that time neither any foreign enemy entered his country nor any severe malady confined him to bed'. 'The fortunate and happy sovereign' according to the same writer, 'enjoyed a highly prosperous life.' We have evidence from the inscriptions, however, of a short period of illness from which the king suffered and which appears to have had rather important consequences in the public administration of the country. In an epigraph from the Tanjore district (No. 46 of 1906)³ dated in the thirty-fourth year of the king, 'the country is said to have been in a state of confusion at the time and the people were in distress. This state of things seems to have been brought about by the king making over a portion of his dominions to his younger brothers. Kulaśēkhara apparently resumed the ceded territories subsequently. As a result of this step, the people, who had migrated to other provinces in the interval, returned to their native country’. Another inscription¹ dated about three years earlier in the thirty-first year which records a gift of land for the recovery of the king from some illness probably explains the circumstances which led to the events mentioned in the later inscription.

c16.35

³ See A.R.E., 1907, part ii, para 27. This record comes from Tirukkaḍaiyūr and Mr. T. A. Gopinatha Rao was clearly wrong in ascribing it to the Kulaśēkhara of the civil war of the twelfth century (Trav. Arch. Series, vol. ii, p. 16). The details of date in the record work out correctly for September 10, A.D. 1301 in the thirty-fourth year of our king (I.A., vol, xliv, p. 198).

c16.36

¹ No. 506 of 1904 which yields a regular date in A.D. 1299 for the thirty-first year (I.A., vol. xliv, p. 198). ² Nos. 260 of 1917 and 218 of 1924. Also A.R.E., 1924, part ii, para 35. ³ A.R.E., 1919, part ii, para 21 gives several examples of this.

c16.37

Kulaśēkhara appears to have had the surname Bhuvanēkavīra which is found in at least one of his records, if not more.² There are references, in the records of Kulaśēkhara and his contemporary Vīra Pāndya, to a number of chieftains with names ending in Vānādirāyan or Mābēli Vānādirāyan. These are among the earliest references in Pāndya records to a race of feudatories who seem at first to have started as hereditary local officials in charge of the administration of portions of the kingdom. In later times, the Vānādirāyans in the Madura country took advantage of the growing weakness of the Pāndyan kings to declare their independence and restrict the actual rule of the later Pāndyas to the Tinnevelly district. It would appear that these local officials so long as they retained a subordinate character indicated their subjection by employing the names of princes of the ruling family as their aliases. The Śāmbuvarāyans who were Chola feudatories are known to have done so,³ and the names of the Mābēlivānādirāyans mentioned in the Pāndya records under reference are best explained on that supposition. On the other hand, the kings to whom those officials were subject used terms evincing a paternal interest in them like *Pillai*, *Makkaḷ* and so on. The records of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇdya make reference to a Pārākrama Pāṇdya Mābēli Vāṇadhirāya *alias* Pāvanangakāra called Makkaḷnāyaṉār; and a Vikrama Pāṇdya Mahābali Vāṇarāya Nāyaṉār may also be taken to be of the same period. An inscription of Jaṭāvarman Vīra Pāṇdya mentions a Piḷḷai Kulaśēkhara Mābēli Vāṇarāyaṉ who may be the same as Piḷḷai Mābelivāṇarāyar who was in charge of Kōnāḍu (part of the Pudukottah state) under Māravarman Kulaśēkhara. We also learn that Kēraḷaśiṅga Vaḷanāḍu (part of the modern district of Ramnad) was under an officer Vāṇadarāyar from the time of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇdya to at least the twenty-fourth year of Kulaśēkhara. The part played by these Bāṇarāya chiefs in the history of the Pāṇdyan kingdom from this time is easy enough to understand in its general outline; but there are several obscure details that await further study and elucidation.¹

c16.38

¹ *A.R.E.*, 1916, part ii, para 28; 1922, part ii, para 36; 1918, part ii, para 51; 1908, part ii, para 45 and 1924, part ii, para 35 contain various attempts at explaining these records. The most important among them are: No. 104 of 1916; No. 46 of 1922; No. 430 of 1907; No. 357 of 1922; No. 328 of 1923 and others.

Linked texts (1)

Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli