The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c16.7

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.