Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Colas c13: Chapter V. From the Śaṅgam Age to Vijayālaya

The Cōḷas c13

Language
English

Chapter V. From the Śaṅgam Age to Vijayālaya

c13.2

The transition from the Śaṅgam age to that in which the Pāṇḍyas of the line of Kaḍuṅgōn and the Pallavas of the Simhaviṣṇu line divide for three centuries the Tamil land between them is completely hidden from our view. The same darkness shrouds the fortunes of the Cōḷas for three centuries more, until the accession of Vijayālaya in the second quarter of the ninth century. Epigraphy and literature, however, provide a few peep-holes through which we obtain glimpses of the interesting transformations that come over this ancient line of kings in this long interval. One thing seems certain, that when the power of the Cōḷas fell to a low ebb and that of the Pallavas and the Pāṇḍyas rose to the north and south of them, the scions of this ancient royal line found themselves compelled to seek service and patronage under their more successful rivals; this is a feature common to several dynasties of Indian kings in the days of their tribulation. The Western Cāḷukyas in the period of Rāṣṭrakūṭa power, the Eastern Cāḷukyas between Rājarāja's conquest of Vengi and the accession of Kulōttunga I to the Cōḷa throne, the Pāṇḍyas and the Pallavas themselves, besides the Gaṅgas and the Bāṇas after the expansion of the Cōḷa power under the successors of Vijayālaya, are among the most conspicuous examples of this common feature of Indian history. Ancient memories die hard; and great dynastic names, though borne for a time in obscurity, have often, with a turn in the wheel of fortune, been the cause of a renascence of power and glory. It may be doubted if, for all their troubles in this period, the Cōḷas ever completely lost their hold on Uṟaiyūr. Vijayālaya when he comes into prominence rises from the same neighbourhood, and the remotest claimants to Cōḷa descent in the Telugu country, and even further north, glory in the names of Uṟaiyūr and Kāvērī; contemporary epigraphical evidence may also be cited pointing to the same conclusion.

c13.3

The dispersion of the Cōḷas in the period of their weakness, the poor and dispossessed among them going out in quest of fortune, is attested by the occurrence of names of princes and chieftains claiming Cōḷa connections in places as far removed from one another as Koḍumbāḷūr (Pudukottah), Śīyyāḷi (Shiyali), and Mālēpāḍu. The Pāṇḍyas of Uccangi, the Mauryas of Koṅkan, the Guttas of Guttal (Bombay), like the Cōḷas of the Telugu country, are examples of what may be styled dynastic drift in Indian History.¹

c13.4

The Vēḷvikuḍi grant of the Pāṇḍyas and some Pallava charters mention the obscure clan of the Kaḷabhras who were responsible for much political unsettlement in the country, and whose overthrow formed the first step in the resuscitation of the power of the Pāṇḍyas and the Pallavas towards the end of the sixth century. We may assume that the predatory activities of the Kaḷabhras² brought the power of the early Cōḷas also to an end. The absence of any allusion to this fact in the Cōḷa inscriptions and copper-plates of the Vijayālaya line is easily accounted for. Unlike the Pāṇḍyas and the Pallavas who quickly succeeded in wresting from the hands of the Kaḷabhras what they had lost to them sometime before, the Cōḷas were submerged for nearly three centuries under the rising tide of the Pāṇḍya and Pallava powers. They could not find their feet again until these newly risen forces had spent themselves in mutual hostility. In the writings of Buddhadatta³ we have singularly interesting evidence on the rule of the Kaḷabhras in the Cōḷa country. The date of Buddhadatta is, unfortunately, not as certain as has sometimes been assumed; the tradition that makes him a contemporary of Buddhaghōṣa is late, and not warranted by any statement in the extensive works of either of these divines.⁴ Buddhadatta might have been the earlier of the two to visit Ceylon for studying Buddhism. It is quite certain, however, that he lived in the dark period of South Indian history after the light of the Śaṅgam literature fails, and before a fresh dawn commences with the Pāṇḍya and Pallava charters mentioned above; and his evidence is all the more welcome. At the close of his *Abhidhammāvatāra*, he gives a glowing account of Kāvēripaṭṭaṇa, with its concourse of rich merchants, its palaces and pleasure-gardens,⁵ and states that, in a great monastery built there by Kaṇhadāsa, he lived for a time and composed that work at the very proper request of Sumati, evidently one of his pupils. Likewise he informs us at the end of his *Vinayaviniccaya* that he composed that work for the sake of Buddhasīha, while he was residing in the lovely monastery of Veṇhudāsa in a city on the banks of the Kāvērī, by name Bhūtamangalaṁ,⁶ described by him as the hub of Cōḷaraṭṭha. He adds also that this work was begun and finished when Accutavikkanta of the Kaḷabhrakula was ruling the earth.⁷ This Accuta could have been no other than the king of the same name who is reputed, in literary tradition,⁸ to have kept in confinement the three Tamil kings, the Cēra, Cōḷa and Pāṇḍya. Some songs about him are quoted by Amitasāgarar, the author of the *Yāpparuṅgalak-kārikai*, in the tenth century A.D. Possibly Accuta was himself a Buddhist. At any rate, by calling the Kaḷabhras a tribe of Kali kings and stating that they uprooted many *adhirājar* and meddled with *brahmadēya* rights, the Vēḷvikuḍi grant makes it clear that there was no love lost between these interlopers and the people of the lands overrun by them. In the colophons to his works, Buddhadatta is called an inhabitant of Uragapura which perhaps means that Uṟaiyūr was his native place.

c13.5

Sometime after Accuta’s rule, how long after we cannot say exactly, the Pallavas and the Pāṇḍyas established their power after overthrowing the Kaḷabhras; and the Cōḷas, though they could not recover their independent status, continued to lead an obscure existence on the banks of the Kāvēri. The newly risen powers in the north and south seem to have left them alone for the most part, though, possibly out of regard for their ancient name, they accepted Cōḷa princesses in marriage, and employed in their service Cōḷa princes who were willing to accept it.

c13.6

The Chinese pilgrim Yuan Chwang, who spent several months at Amarāvatī and Kāñcīpuram in A.D. 639 and 640, took the kingdom of Culi-ya (Cōḷika?) on his way south. The bearings recorded in the pilgrim’s itinerary led Cunningham to find its modern representative in the Karnūl district.⁹ A number of stone inscriptions from the Cuddapah district¹⁰ and two interesting copper-plate grants which give the names of four generations attest the rule of a dynasty of kings bearing the Cōḷa name, tracing their descent from Karikāla and holding sway in this region. The territory ruled by them was called Rēnāṇḍu 7,000, and comprised the tract of land lying along the Kundēru river in the Cuddapah and Karnūl districts.¹¹ On palaeographical grounds the stone inscriptions have been held to be anterior to the 8th century¹² and very good reason can be shown for assigning them, together with the copper-plates from Mālēpāḍu, to the seventh century A.D.¹³ The titles borne by these kings show that they had rather intimate political connections with the Pallavas and the Cāḷukyas. It is possible that though they claimed independent status for themselves and for the most part maintained it with success, policy sometimes dictated to them the need for acknowledging in some vague manner the supremacy of their more powerful neighbours. Their crest, figured in the Mālēpāḍu plates, represents, not a tiger, but a maned lion with its tail twisted in a loop over the back; it resembles that of the Viṣṇukuṇḍins and the Pallavas, and was possibly Buddhist in origin.¹⁴ The genealogy of the Rēnāṇḍu Cōḷas given in the Mālēpāḍu plates is as follows:¹⁵

c13.7

``` Nandivarman (Kaśyapa-gotra)

c13.8

| . . . . .
| | |

c13.9

Simhaviṣṇu Sundarananda Dhanañjayavarman

c13.10

Cōḷa Mahārāja Mahēndra-vikramavarman, Muditaśilākṣara, Navarāma, Lord of Cōḷa, Kēraḷa and Pāṇḍya countries

c13.11

| . . . . .
| |

c13.12

Guṇamudita Puṇya-kumāra, Pōrmukharāma, Mārdavacitta, Madanavilāsa, etc. ```

c13.13

Of these Dhanañjaya is represented by a single stone inscription¹⁶ in the Cuddapah district. Though several of the stone inscriptions mentioned above belong to Cōḷa Mahārāja, none of them adds anything to our knowledge of the king's reign, and we have no direct means of explaining his titles, among which occurs an ambitious claim to the overlordship of the three Tamil kingdoms of the South. The title of Pṛthivī-vallabha borne by Puṇyakumāra, and the name of his queen Vasanta-Pōri-Cōḷa-Mahādēvi¹⁷ show his connection with the Cāḷukyas. It is difficult to say whether he or his father was ruling at the time of Yuan Chwang's visit; but there can be no doubt that this line of rulers had an important role in the hostilities between the Pallavas and Cāḷukyas of this period. King Cōḷamahārājādhirāja Vikramāditya Satyāditya and his mother Cōḷa Mahādēvi¹⁸ are no doubt other members of the same family who do not figure in the genealogy of the Mālēpāḍu plates. It is to be observed that this king has a higher title than the usual Cōḷa Mahārāja, his territory including Siddhi 1000 (Sidhout country) besides the Rēnāṇḍu 7000. A Cōḷa Māhārāja Kumārānkuśa figures as the *vijñapti* in the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates of the sixth year of the Pallava king, Nandivarman III.¹⁹ The history of this line cannot be fully understood until fresh discoveries are made. But it is already clear that they form the link connecting the early Cōḷas of the Tamil country and the numerous dynasties of petty chieftains in the Telugu and Karnataka country claiming to have been of the Kāśyapa Gōtra and to have descended from Karikāla and ruled at Uṟaiyūr.²⁰

c13.14

Of the Cōḷas of the Tamil country in this period we know even less than we do about the Rēnāṇḍu Cōḷas; for though there are fugitive references to them in the epigraphs and the literature bearing on the age, which show that the Cōḷas lingered on the banks of the Kāvēri all the time, they tell us little else of historical interest. And no epigraphical or architectural monuments of this period that can be directly attributed to the Cōḷas have yet been discovered. No conclusion can be based on the absence of any reference to the Cōḷa kingdom in the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta, as the limits of his conquests are now known to have been much narrower than they appeared once.²¹ The Pallava charters furnish the bulk of the epigraphical evidence on the Cōḷas during this period, and this is, at times, finely supplemented by the W.

c13.15

Cāḷukya and Pāṇḍya grants. The Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates describe Buddhavarmā of the late fourth or early fifth century a.d. as 'the submarine fire to the ocean of the Cōḷa army.’²² Again, Siṁhaviṣṇu (c. a.d. 575-600) is stated to have seized the Cōḷa country watered by the Kāvēri and adorned by groves of areca-palms and rich paddy fields.²³ About the same time the Cāḷukyas claim to have conquered the Cōḷas²⁴; either the claim is false, or the Rēnāṇḍu Cōḷas are meant. Mahēndravarman (c. a.d. 600-630) was proud of his sway over the Cōḷa country; and in his inscriptions the Trichinopoly rock is called the crown of the Cōḷa country,²⁵ and Lord Śiva enjoins the king to build a temple for him on the rock as otherwise he would miss the sight of the rich splendour of the land of the Cōḷas²⁶. In a grandiose and apparently meaningless enumeration of kings overthrown by Narasimhavarman I (c. a.d. 630-660), the Kūram grant (of Paramēśvara-varman I) includes the Cōḷa among the countries conquered by him.²⁷ The Aihōḷe inscription of Pulakēśin II (a.d. 634) states that he confined the power of the Pallavas inside the four walls of Kāñcīpuram and thus brought prosperity to the Cōḷa, Kērala and Pāṇḍya.²⁸ Vikramāditya I, the successor of Pulakēśin II, also claims conquest of the Cōḷa country, and his Gadvāl plates (a.d. 674) mention his victorious camp in the ancient Cōḷa capital Uṟaiyūr on the southern bank of the Kāvēri.²⁹ The Vēḷvikuḍi grant tells us that the Pāṇḍya king Kōccaḍaiyan Raṇadhīra (c. a.d. 710-40) assumed the title Śembiyan, among others, thereby implying that a part of the traditional Cōḷa country passed under his sway. The Trichinopoly inscription³⁰ of Māṟañjaḍaiyan calls him the *tilaka* of two races, the lunar and the solar. The Cōḷas are counted by the Śinnamanūr plates among the allies of the Pallavas who sustained a severe defeat near Kumbakōṇam at the hands of Śrī Māra Śrī-Vallabha (c. a.d. 815-62).

c13.16

Religious tradition confirms our general inference that the Cōḷas, though they had lost their power, did not disappear totally from the banks of the Kāvēri at this time. The *Periya Purāṇam*, a work of the twelfth century a.d., contains traditional information of some value. It tells us that the Pāṇḍya contemporary of Tiru-Ñānasambandar had for his queen a Cōḷa princess of the name Maṅgaiyark-karasi. Pugaḻccōḻa-Nāyanār was a Cōḷa ruler of Uṟaiyūr who held Karuvūr in subjection, conquered an Adigan³¹ and promoted Śaivism. The *Purāṇam* also affirms that when a petty chieftain of Kaḷandai, who became, later, celebrated as Kūṟṟuva-Nāyanār, wanted the Brahmans of Cidambaram to invest him with the diadem and thus confer the dignity of royalty on him in recognition of his extensive conquests, they declined to do so on the ground that only the ancient family of the Cōḷas was entitled to this high privilege, and, to avoid further trouble, migrated to the Cēra country in a body. The family of another Nāyanār, Ēyarkōn-kalikkāman, was living in a village on the banks of the Kāvērī, and devoting itself to agriculture and military service under the Cōḷa monarchs.³² Lastly, a Cōḷa prince married a Pāṇḍyan princess and lived at Madura when Sundaramūrti visited the place in the company of Śēramān Perumāḷ.³³ Though Śēkkiḷār, the author of the *Periya Purāṇam*, is our main authority for these statements, many of them are also found in Nambi Āṇḍār Nambi's brief *andādi* which was the basis of the *Purāṇam*, and the names at least of the kings and chieftains go back to the time of Sundaramūrti, in the eighth century a.d. The *Divyasūri-carita* and the *Guru-paramparā* tell the same tale from the Vaiṣṇava side. Dēvadēvi, the hetaera who captivated āḷvār Toṇḍaraḍippoḍi for a time, met the holy man first when she was returning from the court of the Cōḷa king at Uṟaiyūr. The celebrated Uṟaiyūr-nācciyār, who declined to marry a mortal, and insisted successfully on her union with Lord Ranganātha, was a Cōḷa princess, the daughter of Dharmavarmā of the solar line ruling at Uṟaiyur. Tirumangai-āḷvār started life as a military official appointed by the Cōḷa king. Possibly, some of these literary references to the Cōḷas are due to the mere fact that the works in which they occur were composed in the days of Cōḷa ascendancy; but the unmistakable references to the Pallava contemporaries of the earlier *āḷvārs* and *nāyanārs* in these works are sufficient indication that some old and genuine traditions must have survived at the time and that a few, though not all, of the allusions to the Cōḷas culled from these books may be quite trustworthy.

c13.17

We see then that in the long historical night that envelops the Cōḷas from the third or fourth to the ninth century a.d., their condition is best described as one of suspended animation. They managed, in some manner hidden from view, to find a second home for themselves in the Rēnāṇḍu country. In their original abode, they bent low before every storm that passed over them and bided their time. For aught we know, they were occupied in finding suitable matches for their children, often with a view to political influence, with their more successful rivals, and in promoting the religious movements of the time. Buddhism and Jainism seem to have dominated the land for a while; Accuta, the Kaḷabhra king, was a Buddhist; and there were adherents of Jainism among the Pāṇḍya and Pallava rulers; the rich monastery of Negapatam with its large Buddha image of solid gold was, according to the *Guruparamparā*, looted by Tirumaṅgai-āḻvār. Buddhadatta gives testimony to the construction, at an earlier period, of two large monasteries in the Cōḷa country. But, thanks to the pious exertions of the *āḻvārs* and *nāyanārs*, who led a great Hindu revival, and gave fervent expression to the cult of *bhakti* in the language of the people, the spread of the protestant faiths was stopped and the orthodox creeds restored to their place of dominance. The Cōḷas, in an unostentatious way, assisted the Hindu revival by lending their support impartially to the apostles of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism.

c13.18

¹ Venkayya observes: ‘It is at present impossible to ascertain how these Telugu chiefs came to claim the relationship with Karikāla.’ (*ARE.* 1900, paragraph 45). Strictly, this is quite true. As I understand the matter, however, there was a somewhat live connection between the Cōḷas of the Telugu (Rēnāṇḍu) country and the Tamil Cōḷas; the Mālēpāḍu plates of Puṇyakumāra, I think, form an important link in the chain of evidence, and suggest that the Pallava dominion of the Simhaviṣṇu line may have been the medium through which the drift of Cōḷas to the north took place. The attempts to explain the origin of the Telugu-Cōḍas by supposing that the Telugu country formed part of the empire of the early Cōḷa king, Karikāla, appear to be so much wasted effort. We can hardly treat the legends of the eleventh and twelfth centuries as the history of the third or fourth. See *Studies* pp. 33-6, 61-6. Contra Venkayya-*ASI.* 1905-6. p. 175 n. 8.

c13.19

² See *PK.* pp. 47-9.

c13.20

³ *Buddhadatta’s Manuals*—Part I (1915) and Part II (1928)—ed. A. P. Buddhadatta (Pali Text Society).

c13.21

⁴ Cf. A. P. Buddhadatta’s introduction to Part II of the *Manuals*; contra P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar-*Tamils* p. 528. He makes nonsense of the line ‘*Ayam sumatinā sādhu yācitena kato tato*’ by translating it: “(By me) who am intelligent and good and a beggar, this was composed and propounded extensively.”

c13.22

⁵ This fine description may raise a doubt whether the story of the destruction of the city by a tidal wave (*Maṇimēkalai* xxv ll. 194-204) is to be accepted as literally true.

c13.23

⁶ The identification of this place with Budalūr (P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar op. cit. p. 531) is doubtful; in fact it is a village on the Koradachery-Mannargudi road.

c13.24

7. Accut Accutavikkante Kalabbhakulavaddhane |
Mahim samanusāsante āraddhō ca samāpitō ||

c13.25

A. P. Buddhadatta adopts the reading Kaḷambakula, and holds them to be Kaḍambas.

c13.26

⁸ *Tamiḻ Nāvalar Caritai vv.* 154-57.

c13.27

⁹ Watters, Vol. ii pp. 225 and 341.

c13.28

¹⁰ Ranga chari-Cd. Nos. 309, 318, 350, 405, 409, 435, 453, 550 and also 455, 560.

c13.29

¹¹ *EI.* xi p. 343; xxvii p. 268.

c13.30

¹² *ARE.* 1905 II, 5-6.

c13.31

¹³ *Mad. Chr. Coll. Mag.* Jan 1929. pp. 7-18. cf, *EI*, xxvii p, 248; contra *ibid*: p. 271:

c13.32

¹⁴ *EI.* xi p. 343-4.

c13.33

¹⁵ *EI.* xi p. 345.

c13.34

¹⁶ 380 of 1904 (Rangachari-Cd. 435).

c13.35

¹⁷ 384 of 1904 (Rangachari-Cd. 560);

c13.36

¹⁸ 393 and 400 of 1904 (Rangachari Cd. 453 and 409). Vikramāditya II claims to have conquered the Cōḷas among others. *SII.* i p. 146: *EI.* v. p. 204.

c13.37

¹⁹ *SII.* ii 509 v. 26.

c13.38

²⁰ 231 of 1908 (Baster) *EI.* xi p. 338. Even the Kākatīyas some-times connected themselves with Karikāla. See also *EI.* v. p. 123, *n.* and *Cat. of copper plates (Mad. Mus.)* p. 14 for the undated plates of Śrīkaṇṭha.

c13.39

²¹ Much less can anything be made of the silence of the Sātavā-hana inscription recording Gautamīputra's conquests. *Contra* Venkayya-*ASI.* 1905-6, p. 176 *n.*

c13.40

²² *SII.* ii p. 508 l. 14.

c13.41

²³ *ibid.* ll. 16-17.

c13.42

²⁴ Kielhorn's List of *SII.* No. 5 (*EI.* vii).

c13.43

²⁵ *SII.* i, 33.

c13.44

²⁶ “Vibhūtim Cōḷānām katham-aham avekṣeya vipulām—*ibid.* 34. Hultzsch understands by ‘*vibhūtim Cōḷānām*’ ‘the great power of the Cōḷas.’ But as it is not a proper description of the position of the Cōḷas after their conquest by Simhaviṣṇu, and as such a description is hardly likely to be found in a Pallava grant, I take ‘*Cōḷānām*’ to mean the country.

c13.45

²⁷ *SII.* i, p. 151 ll. 14-5.

c13.46

²⁸ *EI.* vi. p. 6, verses 29-31.

c13.47

²⁹ *EI.* x, p. 103. Uragapura is not as Hultzsch thought Negapatam, ‘but Uraiyūr near Trichinopoly.

c13.48

³⁰ *ASI.* 1903-4 p. 275.

c13.49

³¹ The dynastic name of the chiefs of Tagaḍūr (Dharmapuri).

c13.50

32. The references are easily got in any edition of the *Periya Purānam*. See also *ASI*. 1905-6 pp. 176-7. I cannot discover why Venkayya should have included Iḍaṅgaḻi, a vēḷ chieftain of Kōnāḍu (Pudukkottah) in his account of the Cōḷas of this period. It must be noted, however, that Iḍaṅgaḷi is said to have been the ancestor of Āditya who covered the Cidambaram temple with gold from Kongu. Even if this is a reference to Āditya I who conquered Kongu and annexed Toṇḍai-nāḍ to the Cōḷa kingdom, Iḍaṅgaḷi might have been connected with the Cōḷas only by giving his daughter in marriage to a Cōḷa prince. At any rate, we have no evidence that the Cōḷas were descended from the Vēḷs in the male line.

c13.51

33. *Sēramān Perumāḷ-Nāyanār Purāṇam* v. 92.

Linked texts (12)