The Colas c10.31

c10.31

17. Smith, *EHI*⁴ p. 147. See M. S. Ramaswami Aiyangar, *Studies in South Indian Jainism*, pp. 127 ff, for a succinct summary of the evidence on the subject; also Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, *Beginnings*, pp. 88 ff. Following Pandit M. Raghava Aiyangar, M. S. R. lays (p. 134 ff. *op. cit.*) undue stress on *vamba* in the phrase *vamba mōriyar* (*Aham* 251), quotes late and obscure Gupta legends of the tenth century A.D. in support of his notion that the Imperial Guptas were confounded by Māmūlanār with the more ancient Mauryas, and seeks to establish a fifth century date for Māmūlanār and his contemporaries of the Śaṅgam. The fact that Pandit Raghava Aiyangar does not now see much force in these arguments as he once did, and has suppressed them in the second edition of his *Śēran Śeṅguṭṭuvan*, perhaps renders otiose any detailed discussion of these views. The phrase '*vamba mōriyar*' is used by Māmūlanār only once; he himself, elsewhere, talks only of the '*mōriyar*' and so do the two other poets, Paraṅkoṟṟanār (*Aham* 69) and Ātiraiyanār (*Puṟam* 175). The expression cannot therefore be made much of, especially because '*vamba*' is an adjective with several meanings of which 'unsteady', 'restless,' is admittedly one. And supposing for a moment that Māmūlanār was thinking of the Imperial Mauryas, he knows of the Nandas and their wealth, nothing could have struck him more than the 'restlessness' of these Mauryas, eager to annex all the kingdoms of India to their empire. Even accepting the other meaning suggested for the word '*vamba*,' 'new,' we are not aware of any insuperable difficulty in supposing that, at the time when Māmūlanār was writing the Mauryan expansion to the South was a fact of recent history. One fails to see moreover how some confusion between the Mauryas and the Guptas that marks the legendary genealogy of an obscure clan of rulers in North India can furnish an analogue for a similar confusion in the mind of a South Indian Tamil poet of unknown age; much less, how such inferential confusion can be made the basis for suggesting a date for the poet and his compositions. M. S. R. was strongly influenced by Smith's view of Samudragupta the Indian Napoleon's campaign in the South based on his early identification of 'Palakka' of the Allahabad pillar inscription with Palghat, which is no longer considered sound. Mr. P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar says of *Aham* 281: 'The Kōśar are called here Vaḍugar.' It may be so; in which case *Vaḍugar munnuṟa* of this verse should be a brief allusion to the failure of the Kōśar to subdue Mōhūr, narrated at greater length in *Aham* 251. But Mr. Aiyangar's assertion that the Konkan Mauryas 'were the only possible Mōriyar who, in conjunction with the Kōśar, could have attempted a raid into the Tamil country' is hardly convincing. See his *Tamils* pp. 522-3.