The Colas c15: Chapter VII. Parāntaka I (A.D. 907-955)

The Cōḷas c15

Language: English

Chapter VII. Parāntaka I (A.D. 907-955)

c15.2

At the time of the battle of Śrī Puṟambiyam, the Cōḷas held a small principality including Tanjore and Uṟaiyūr, perhaps in subjection to the Pallavas. But within twenty-five years their power became formidable. This expansion was exclusively the work of Āditya I, a remarkable warrior and able diplomat. Circumstances favoured him and he made full use of his opportunities. The Pāṇḍyas, after Śrī Puṟambiyam, were engrossed in their own troubles at home; Varaguṇa died soon after the battle, and his successor Śrī Pāṟāntaka Vīranārāyaṇa had to deal with a serious rising headed by the haughty Ugra.¹ With the Pallava Aparājita, Āditya was on friendly terms for some years after Śrī Puṟambiyam. He then turned against him and deprived him of the bulk, if not the whole, of his possessions; in this enterprise, Āditya was possibly aided by his Ganga contemporary; and the obscure conflicts that were engaging the Bāṇas, the Vaidumbas, the Gangas and the Noḷambas, of which the battle of Sorēmati was the central event, must have indirectly facilitated Āditya's success. Before the end of his reign Āditya conquered Kongu and annexed it to his territories. Thus at the accession of his son Parāntaka, A.D. 907, the Cōḷa kingdom embraced the whole country between Madras and Kāḷahasti in the north, and the Kāvēri in the south, with the exception of the Mysore table-land and the strip along the west coast. It kept the Ganga power in a position of subordinate alliance and was friends with the Cēra. The first conflict with the Pāṇḍya power had perhaps already taken place in the Kongu country.²

c15.3

Parāntaka I ruled for forty-eight years, as the latest inscription of his reign is dated in his forty-eighth regnal year.³ Early in his reign he resisted with success the attempt of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa II to put his own grand-son Kannaradeva on the Cōḷa throne. Thenceforth Parāntaka's rule was one of increasing success and prosperity for the best part of it; he followed up his father's victories by putting an end to Pāṇḍyan independence and extending the empire up to Kanyākumkāri in the south; he even invaded Ceylon, though the raid, as we shall see, failed of its object. Elsewhere, he subjugated the Bāṇas, and the Gaṅga king Hastimalla acknowledged his sway. The last vestiges of Pallava power disappeared and the dominion of Parāntaka extended up to Nellore in the north. Towards the end of his reign, however, Kṛṣṇa III invaded the Cōḷa empire in great force from the north-west, and in the conflict that ensued Parāntaka’s eldest son Rājāditya lost his life, and Parāntaka himself did not long survive the cataclysm. A heavy gloom settles on Cōḷa power for a period of over three decades thereafter until the accession of the celebrated Rājarāja I in A.D. 985.

c15.4

Parāntaka invaded the Pāṇḍya country very soon after his accession. He bears the title *Maduraikoṇḍa* (who captured Madura) as early as his third year.⁴ The conquest and subjugation of the Pāṇḍyan kingdom was, however, a gradual process; the earliest inscription of Parāntaka actually found in the Pāṇḍyan country is dated in his 24th year.⁵ The Śinnamanūr and the Udayēndiram plates concur in the name of the Pāṇḍya king, Rājasimha, who suffered deprivation and exile at the hands of Parāntaka. Says the *Mahāvaṃsa*:⁶

c15.5

‘While thus the sovereign of Laṅkā (Kassapa V. A.D. 913-23) held sway in justice, the Paṇḍu king was vanquished in battle by the Cōḷa king. To gain military aid he sent numerous gifts. The king, the ruler of Laṅkā, took counsel with his officials, equipped military forces, appointed his Sakkasēnāpati as leader of the troops, and betook himself to Mahātittha. Standing at the edge of the coast he spoke of the triumph of former kings, and having thus aroused their enthusiasm, he made his troops embark. With his army the Sakkasēnāpati thereupon safely crossed the sea and reached the Paṇḍu country. When the Paṇḍu king saw the troops and him, he spake full of cheer: “I will join all Jambudīpa under one umbrella.” The king took the two armies; but as he could not vanquish him (the king) of the Cōḷa line, set out once more with the purpose of fighting further, made halt, and died of the *upasagga* (plague) to the undoing of the Paṇḍu (king). When the ruler of Laṅkā heard that

c15.6

'the troops were also perishing of the same disease, out of pity he had the army brought back.'

c15.7

In this account we can recognise three stages in the conflict. In the first the Pāṇḍyan king suffers a defeat at the hands of Parāntaka. The second stage begins with his appeal for aid to the Ceylonese ruler and ends with a fight in which the Pāṇḍyan and Ceylonese troops together sustained defeat and retreated before the Cōḷa forces. Lastly, another effort made by the Ceylonese commander came to nothing owing to a plague which killed him and led to the recall of the Ceylonese army. The inscriptions so far as they go corroborate this account in every respect; only, they make no mention of the second effort of Sakkasēnāpati and the plague.

c15.8

The first stage in the account of the *Mahāvaṁsa* corresponds, doubtless, to the raid on Madura in the first years of Parāntaka's rule which led to his adopting the title Madhurāntaka, the destroyer of Madura. The second stage in the war is thus graphically pictured by the Udayēndiram plates of Pṛthivīpati in a.d. 921-2.⁷

c15.9

'His (Parāntaka's) army, having crushed at the head of a battle the Pāṇḍya king together with an army of elephants, horses and soldiers, seized a herd of elephants together with (the city of) Madhurā. Having slain in an instant, at the head of a battle, an immense army, despatched by the lord of Lankā, which teemed with brave soldiers (and) was interspersed with troops of elephants and horses, he bears in the world the title Saṅgrāma Rāghava (i.e., Rāma in battle) which is full of meaning. When he defeated the Pāṇḍya (king) Rājasimha, two persons experienced the same fear at the same time: (Kubēra), the lord of wealth, on account of the death of his own friend (and) Vibhīṣaṇa on account of the proximity (of the Cōḷa dominions to Ceylon)'.

c15.10

These events must have taken place some years before the date of the Udayēndiram grant. As early as a.d. 923 we find the title *Maduraiyum Īḻamum Koṇḍa*, in a record of Parāntaka.⁸ Two inscriptions of the twelfth year make casual allusions to incidents in the battle of Veḷḷūr in which the

c15.11

Pāṇḍya and Ceylonese forces were defeated by the Cōḷa. One is a gift to commemorate the victory of Paluvēṭṭaraiyar Kaṇḍan Amudanār on the occasion when the Pāṇḍya king, helped by the Ceylonese army, attacked the Cōḷa king at the battle of Veḷḷūr.⁹ Another is an endowment for the merit of four soldiers (*sēvakar*) who died in a frontal attack (*nerriśenṟa*) led by Śennippēraraiyan at Vēḷūr (Veḷḷūr) on the occasion when the Pāṇḍyan and Ceylonese kings came and fought a deadly battle with the Cōḷa.¹⁰ It is clear that there was a great and decisive battle at Veḷḷūr in which the Cōḷa troops had to fight hard before securing victory and which was well remembered for some years after the event for the exceptional heroism of its incidents. It seems probable that this battle was fought about A.D. 915.

c15.12

The victory of Parāntaka at Veḷḷūr paved the way for the progressive conquest and annexation of the Pāṇḍyan country. Frustrated in all his attempts to stem the tide of the Cōḷa invasion, the unlucky Rājasiṁha took to flight, leaving his ancient heritage to fall into the hands of his enemy. In the reign of Dappula IV (A.D. 923-934) the *Mahāvaṁsa* records:¹¹

c15.13

‘At that time the Paṇḍu king through fear of the Cōḷa (king) left his country, took ship and came to Mahātittha. The king had him brought to him, rejoiced greatly when he saw him, gave him an abundant income and granted him a dwelling outside the town. When the king of Laṅkā had armed (with the purpose): “I will make war on the Cōḷa king, take from him his two thrones¹² and give them to the Paṇḍu king,” the nobles dwelling on the island for some reason or other stirred up a sorry strife to the undoing of the Paṇḍu king. The Paṇḍu king thought his sojourn here was of no use to him. He left his diadem and other valuables behind and betook himself to the Kēraḷas.’

c15.14

This is confirmed by a verse¹³ in the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates saying:

c15.15

‘Encircled by the fire of his (Parāntaka’s) prowess, the Pāṇḍya, as if desirous of cooling the heat caused by it, quickly entered the sea (embarked for Ceylon), abandoning his royal state and the kingdom inherited from his ancestors.’

c15.16

Rājasimha proceeded to Kērala from Ceylon because it was the home of his mother Vānavan-mahādēvi.¹⁴ The rulers of Kēraḷa were in such close political alliance with the Cōḷas in this period, that Rājasimha depended more on the Ceylonese king for help in the first instance, and went to Kērala only as a last resort, even then leaving his crown and other valuables behind in Ceylon. The flight of Rājasimha may be dated, following the chronology of the *Mahāvamsa*, sometime between the sixteenth and the twenty-sixth year of Parāntaka's reign.

c15.17

Parāntaka spent many years in reducing the newly conquered country to subjection, and when he felt he was near the end of his task, he wanted to celebrate his success by a formal coronation at Madura at which he was to invest himself with the insignia of Pāṇḍyan monarchy. These had been carried away by Rājasimha and left in the custody of the Ceylonese king, and Parāntaka made an unsuccessful effort to secure them in the reign of the slothful and intemperate Udaya IV A.D. 945-53.¹⁵

c15.18

‘The Cōḷa king hearing of his sloth was greatly pleased, and as he wished to achieve consecration as king in the Paṇḍu kingdom, he sent (messengers) concerning the diadem and the other (things) which the Paṇḍu (king) had left behind (in Lankā). The king did not give them up, so the mighty Cōḷa equipped an army and sent it forth to fetch them by force. Now, at that time the Senāpati here (in Ceylon) was absent in a rebellious border province. The king had him fetched and sent him forth to begin the war. The Senāpati set forth, delivered battle and fell in the fight. Thereupon the king (Udaya) took the crown and the rest and betook himself to Rohaṇa. The Cōḷa troops marched thither, but finding no way of entering Rohaṇa, they turned and betook themselves through fear from here to their own country.’

c15.19

The exact date of these occurrences cannot be determined; the Ceylonese account is no doubt right in placing them in the last years of Parāntaka's reign.¹⁶ His failure was remembered, and made up for, years later, by his powerful descendant Rājēndra I.

c15.20

Besides the friendliness of the Kēraḷa ruler and the assistance of the Paḷuvēṭṭaraiyar chieftains of Kīḻappaḷuvūr, Parāntaka was aided in his Pāṇḍyan campaigns by the Vēḷir chiefs of Koḍumbāḷūr. Records dated very early in Parāntaka's reign show that prince Arikulakēsari, one of the sons of Parāntaka, had already married Pūdi Ādicca Piḍāri, daughter of Tennavan Iḷangōvēḷār of the Koḍumbāḷūr line.¹⁷ Other evidence of the close connection in this period between the Cōḷa line and the Koḍumbāḷūr chieftains is furnished by records from Pudukottah and the Trichinopoly district.¹⁸ Their hostility to the Pāṇḍya king Rājasimha becomes clear from the Śinnamanūr plates of the sixteenth year of Rājasimha (c. A.D. 916). While giving an account of Rājasimha's relations with the Cōḷas in the early years of Parāntaka's rule, the Pāṇḍyan inscription says that Rājasimha 'defeated the king of Tañjai (Tanjore) at Naippūr, fought a battle at Koḍumbai (Koḍumbāḷūr), the seat of one of the powerful Cōḷa subordinates, burnt Vañji and destroyed the king of Southern Tañjai (perhaps another subordinate of the Cōḷas) at Nāval.'¹⁹ This rather obscure and, no doubt, highly embellished account, from the Pāṇḍyan side, of the early stages of the Cōḷa war is valuable in two respects. It confirms the impression derived from the *Mahāvaṁsa* and the inscriptions of Parāntaka that his conquest of the Madura kingdom was a gradual and difficult process which involved much fighting spread over many years. It provides, moreover, a clear idea of the alinement of the political powers in these struggles, and corroborates the view that the Cēra and the Koḍumbāḷūr chiefs²⁰ were friendly to the Cōḷa and fought on his side.

c15.21

The intervals between his Pāṇḍyan wars were employed by Parāntaka in extending his power elsewhere. The Sholingur rock inscription²¹ of the ninth year mentions that the Gaṅga Pṛthivīpati II got the title of Bāṇādhirāja from Parāntaka and that he distinguished himself in a fight at Vallāḷa. The Udayēndiram plates of Pṛthivīpati²² state that Parāntaka uprooted two Bāṇa kings and conquered the Vaidumbas.

c15.22

In the early years of Parāntaka's rule the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Kṛṣṇa II appears to have made an attempt to set aside Parāntaka and bestow the Cōḷa throne on his daughter's son Kannaradeva. He invaded the Cōḷa kingdom from the north-west and the Bāṇas who were his feudatories joined their forces to his. In his turn Parāntaka was assisted by his subordinate, the Gaṅga Pṛthivīpati II. The decisive engagement was fought at Vallāla, modern Tiruvallam some time about 910-11. Kṛṣṇa II and his allies suffered a signal defeat, and the Kanyākumārī inscription of Vīrarājendra categorically affirms that Parāntaka earned the name Vīra-Cōḷa by his victory over the invincible Kṛṣṇarāja.²³ Thus Kṛṣṇa’s attempt ended in failure, Parāntaka became secure on his throne, and eventually punished the Bāṇas and other allies of Kṛṣṇa for their part in the war started by him.

c15.23

The Bāṇas were an ancient line of kings who ruled for over two centuries in the tract that came to be called Perumbāṇappāḍi, the big Bāṇa country.²⁴ This was the area to the north of the Pālār, between Punganūr in the west and Kāḷahasti in the east. There is reason to believe that at an earlier period they ruled the territory further north and were forced to migrate south in the period of the rise and expansion of the Cāḷukyas of Bādāmi. In the last stages of their existence as an independent power their capital was at Parivi²⁵ which is first mentioned in the Sholingur inscription and may be identical with Parigi in the Hindupur taluq of Anantapur district. The last ruler of the line was Vikramāditya III, Vijayabāhu, described as the dear friend of Kṛṣṇarāja, doubtless Kṛṣṇa III, his powerful Rāṣṭrakūṭa neighbour. The course of events which is nowhere described in explicit terms can only be inferred from a careful study of the dates which, fortunately, are clearly recorded in the inscriptions.

c15.24

Hastimalla got the title Bāṇādhirāja from Parāntaka before A.D. 916. (Sholingur record.) Vijayāditya II Prabhamēru ruled the Bāṇa territory independently till A.D. 909.²⁶ The conquest of the Bāṇas by Parāntaka must have taken place in the intervening period of six or seven years. The great-grandson of Vijayāditya Prabhumēru is known from his Udayēndiram grant to have been the friend of Kṛṣṇarāja III Rāṣṭrakūta. There were two Bāṇa kings intervening—Vikramāditya II and Vijayāditya III, Pugaḷvippavargaṇḍa. Considering the fact that the Rāṣṭrakūta Kṛṣṇa III could not have begun his reign much earlier than A.D. 940, it seems proper to infer that the two Bāṇa rulers who were dispossessed of their kingdom and perhaps forced by Parāntaka to seek refuge within the Rāṣṭrakūṭa dominion were Vikramāditya II and Vijayāditya III. The title conferred on Pṛthivīpati II, Bāṇādhirāja, was not then an empty name; it carried with it the real overlordship of the Bāṇa country for some years. And this uprooting of the Bāṇas, so proudly proclaimed by the Gaṅga ruler who benefited thereby, contributed to the invasion of the Cōḷa lands by Kṛṣṇa III which ended so disastrously for the Cōḷas.

c15.25

Forming part of the campaign against the Bāṇas, or at any rate closely connected with it, was the war against the Vaidumbas. These were a Telugu family who have left behind a few records in that language and in Kannaḍa. In the ninth century they claim to have had the Rēnāṇḍu 7000 country under them, and their inscriptions tell us that in the great battle of Sorēmati (c. A.D. 850) they took the side of the Bāṇas against the Noḷambas and the Gaṅgas. This alliance with, and possibly subordination to, the Bāṇas continued until the time of Parāntaka's war with them. We have no direct means of identifying the opponent of Parāntaka. Some records²⁷ of Kannaradēva (Kṛṣṇa III) from the South Arcot district mention the Vaidumba Mahārāja Śandayan Tiruvayan and Tiruvayan Śrīkaṇṭha; the Vaidumba chief reduced to submission by Parāntaka about A.D. 915 must have been Śandayan Tiruvayan himself or his immediate predecessor. The Vaidumbas, like the Bāṇas, sought refuge with the Rāṣṭrakūṭas from the onslaught of the Cōḷas. In later times, under Rājarāja I and Rājēndra, when the Cōḷa empire regained its ascendancy, the son and grandson of Tiruvayan accepted subordinate positions under the Cōḷas.

c15.26

Two inscriptions²⁸ from Tiruvoṟṟiyūr contain the most casual reference to a campaign in the Nellore district. An officer of Parāntaka, Māṟan Paramēśvaran, a native of Śiṟukuḷattūr, overthrew Śīṭpuḷi and destroyed Nellūr, and on his way back to the south, he stopped at Tiruvoṟṟiyūr to make a thanks-offering to Mahādēva in the form of a grant of land, which four years later was released from the fiscal dues falling upon it. The original gift was made in the thirty-fourth year of Parāntaka (A.D. 941).

c15.27

This campaign was probably directed against the power of the Vēṅgī ruler Cāḷukya Bhīma II. Śiṭpuḷi was a district in the southern regions of the Eastern Cāḷukya kingdom.²⁹ Considering that no records of Parāntaka have been discovered in the east coast region to the north of Tiruvoṟṟiyūr, it may be doubted if the campaign had any permanent results.³⁰

c15.28

From about A.D. 940, Parāntaka experienced the increasing difficulty of defending an empire at a great many points; in less than fifty years a small principality had grown into a widespread dominion at the expense of its neighbouring states; the very quickness of the expansion was fraught with danger and dynasties which had been dispossessed and driven out of their traditional homes could not all be expected to give in without further struggle. Nor was it likely that other powers like the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the Eastern Cāḷukyas would view without concern the progress of the Cōḷa power. We have seen already that some time after A.D. 945, Parāntaka experienced a repulse in Ceylon and failed to take from Udaya IV the Pāṇḍyan diadem. We must now turn to a narration of the occurrences elsewhere that must have had no small share in forcing Parāntaka to give up the fight in Ceylon and acquiesce in his failure.

c15.29

The death of Gaṅga Pṛthivīpati II, the trusted friend and vassal of Parāntaka I, which must have occurred about A.D. 940,³¹ may be said to mark the commencement of Parāntaka's troubles from this quarter. Pṛthivīpati left no son, Vikkiyaṇṇa having pre-deceased him.³² Būtuga II, who had married a Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess Rēvakā, the sister of Kṛṣṇa III, and assisted Kṛṣṇa in securing his throne from a usurper, was now left in unquestioned supremacy in the Gaṅga country, because he had murdered his elder brother Rācamalla and annexed his possessions also.³³ And the Bāṇas and the Vaidumbas were already by the side of Kṛṣṇa soliciting his protection and aid against the powerful Cōḷa. Kṛṣṇa was in the prime of life and had just encountered and overcome opposition at home and was not reluctant to seize the favourable moment that chance offered to him for making a great advance to the south.³⁴

c15.30

It is possible that these developments were fore-shadowed even in the life-time of Pṛthivīpati and a little before the accession of Kṛṣṇa to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa throne. A record³⁵ from the North Arcot district commemorates the death of a hero in a.d. 936 in a cattle-raid by a Western Gaṅga king (Perumānaḍigaḷ), and this may be taken to give the first indication of the coming storm. There is also evidence to show that about this time Rājāditya, the eldest son of Parāntaka, was stationed with a large army including an elephant corps and some cavalry ³⁶ in the district known in inscriptions and literature as Tiru-

c15.31

munaippāḍi-nāḍu. Veḷḷaṅgumaran, a Kēraḷa general of Rājāditya's forces, was present at Grāmam as early as a.d. 936,³⁷ where seven years later he constructed a stone temple to Śiva on the banks of the Peṇṇār.³⁸ Tirunāvalūr, a village near Grāmam, called Rājādittapuram till about a.d. 1140,³⁹ was the residence of Rājāditya for many years. We also find Arikulakēsari⁴⁰ in the same region about the same time, no doubt assisting his brother Rājāditya. It

c15.32

is clear, therefore, that Parāntaka was not unmindful of the repercussions of his aggressive policy against the Bāṇas and the Vaidumbas, and that though he expected much from the loyal support of Pṛthivīpati II, he did not leave everything to him, but made his own preparations to meet an emergency.

c15.33

The chronology of Kṛṣṇa's campaign against the Cōḷa has been the subject of some difference of opinion, but it is not incapable of precise determination. The Sōḷapuram inscription⁴¹ which is dated in three different ways may furnish the starting point. This record which bears the Śaka date 871 (a.d. 949) is also dated in the second year of some king not named in direct relation to this regnal year. But as Kannaradēva started his rule in or about a.d. 940,⁴² the second year cannot be his. Venkayya, however, affirms⁴³ that this is 'evidently a record of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Kṛṣṇa III' and suggests that the date is 'probably the second year after the occupation of the Toṇḍaināḍu' by him. But the suggestion is contradicted by the record itself which says that it was the year in which Kṛṣṇa entered Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam; and we have no other instance in his numerous records from that country of his using, the date of his entry into Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam as the starting point of an era; they give invariably his regnal year. The only alternative is to assume with Hultzsch that it refers to Rājāditya's rule as the inscription comes from a place within the sphere of his jurisdiction as viceroy. It is not to be supposed⁴⁴ that Rājāditya began to rule and issue inscriptions in his own name only after the death of his father; for nothing is more common in Cōḷa inscriptions than for records of successive rulers dated in different series of regnal years to overlap. Rājāditya had by A.D. 948 served his father actively in a subordinate capacity for over a dozen years, and it is not a violent assumption to make that Rājāditya was made 'co-regent'⁴⁵ in that year.

c15.34

The third method in which the Sōḷapuram record is dated is by describing it as the year in which Cakravartin Kannaradēva Vallabhan entered Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam after the overthrow of Rājāditya. It seems likely that this record was engraved very soon after Rājāditya's death, when the consequences of the battle of Takkōlam were not yet fully realised. By the evidence of this record the successful invasion of Kṛṣṇa took place in A.D. 949.

c15.35

The Ātakūr inscription of Būtuga II affords striking confirmation of this date. It dates the battle of Takkōlam (in which Rājāditya lost his life at the hands of Būtuga) in the current Śaka year 872, i.e., A.D. 949-50.⁴⁶ Again Parāntaka's own inscriptions tell the same tale. His inscriptions bearing dates in A.D. 948 are found in the South and North Arcot districts,⁴⁷ and it is a remarkable fact that not only are his inscriptions not found in these districts after that date, but no inscriptions of his dated in his regnal years 42-44 (inclusive) are at all known—a fact clearly to be accounted for by some great disaster like the battle of Takkōlam. Thus all lines of evidence point to one date, A.D. 949, as the year which decided the fortunes of the contest between Parāntaka and Kṛṣṇa.

c15.36

One inscription⁴⁸ from Siddhaliṅgamaḍam (South Arcot), dated in the fifth year of Kṛṣṇa's reign, already in A.D. 944-5 gives him the title Kacciyum-Tañjaiyumkoṇḍa. This has created some confusion, and led some scholars to imagine that Kṛṣṇa's invasion and occupation of Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam was earlier than the battle of Takkōlam.⁴⁹ But the difficulty of reconciling this datum with the rest of our evidence is so great as to be almost insuperable, and we can hardly help suspecting some mistake here. For if Kṛṣṇa was in Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam as early as A.D. 944-5, how can we account for Parāntaka's inscriptions being found in the Arcot districts till 948, for the presence of Rājāditya at Takkōlam in 949, and for the battle of Takkōlam itself? Again, how can we account for the fact that, barring this single record from Siddhalingamaḍam, there is no other inscription of Kṛṣṇa dated before his sixteenth regnal year A.D 956, in the North and South Arcot districts? There is no alternative, in fact, to our rejecting this record as spurious at least in its date. It should be noticed that the Vyāghrapādēśvara temple from which the inscription comes was renovated in the reign of Kulōttunga I by one of his officers,⁵⁰ and that it is quite probable that an error crept into the copy of this old inscription reproduced on the new walls more than a century after it was originally recorded, and this, I think, is the real explanation of the difficulty.⁵¹

c15.37

We may now turn to the actual course of events con-

c15.38

nected with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa invasion. It has been pointed out before that Parāntaka was quite alive to the danger from the north-west frontier of his dominions, and that he took early steps to maintain a strong frontier force intended to resist any hostile movements on the part of his enemies. It would seem that the arrangements made by Parāntaka fulfilled their purpose for quite a number of years. But the long threatened clash came actually in A.D. 949, and the decisive engagement took place at Tak-

c15.39

kōlam, six miles to the South-east of Arkōṇam in the North Arcot district.⁵² The Ātakūr inscription tells us that Kannaradēva 'was making a display of triumph after fighting against and killing the Mūvaḍi-Cōḷa-Rājāditya at a place called Takkōla'; it also adds: 'when Kannaradēva was fighting the Cōḷa, Būtuga made the howdah the battle-field, and aimed at, pierced and killed Rājāditya'—an act for which Kṛṣṇa rewarded him by granting him the districts of Banavāse 12,000, and Beḷvōla 300.⁵³ The Cōḷa version of what happened on the occasion is not different; the Tiruvālangāḍu plates⁵⁴ say that Rājāditya went to heaven after conquering Kṛṣṇarāja; the larger Leyden grant is more explicit and records⁵⁵:

c15.40

'The heroic Rājāditya, the ornament of the solar race, having shaken in battle the unshakable Kṛṣṇarāja with his forces, by means of his sharp arrows flying in all directions was himself pierced in his heart while seated on the back of a large elephant by the sharp arrows of the enemy, and (thus) winning the praise of the three worlds, he ascended to the heaven of heroes in a tall *vimāna*.'

c15.41

This clearly implies that there was much hard fighting, and that the Cōḻa army lost the battle mainly on account of a well-aimed arrow of Būtuga having fatally wounded Rājāditya.

c15.42

That even this decisive battle was not followed by the total collapse of all resistance to Kṛṣṇa's advance, and that he had some more years of rather hard fighting, may be inferred from the fact that inscriptions dated in his reign do not begin to appear till his sixteenth year, A.D. 956 or at the earliest 953. Inscriptions from South Arcot dated in Śaka years 874-876 (A.D. 952-954)⁵⁶ recording gifts of minor chieftains but not acknowledging either Cōḻa or Rāṣṭrakūṭa supremacy may be taken to support this inference. There is much uncertainty, however, about the exact course of the events that followed Takkōlam. We have no Cōḻa records from the districts of North Arcot, South Arcot and Chingleput for several years after the battle; Kṛṣṇa's records with dates ranging from the sixteenth to the twenty-eighth years of his reign are found in the same area. By assuming the tittle '*Kacciyum-Tañjaiyum-Koṇḍa*,' Kṛṣṇa claimed to have captured Kañcīpuram and Tañjāvūr. The 'spurious' Sudi plates⁵⁷ state that Būtuga, after conquering Rājāditya, assaulted Tanjore, Nālkoṭe and a number of other fortresses and handed over to Kṛṣṇa elephants, horses and a vast amount of treasure captured from these places. The Karhāḍ grant A.D. 959, which shows Kṛṣṇa still in his camp at Mēlpāḍi (N. Arcot) at the end of his southern campaigns, states that in the course of his *digvijaya* in the south, he uprooted the family of the Cōḻas, distributed their territory among his followers, extorted tributes from several kings, including the king of Ceylon, and erected a pillar of victory in Rāmēśvaram.⁵⁸ We cannot say for certain if these are merely empty boasts or the record of a triumphant raid across the southern countries. No inscriptions of Kṛṣṇa or his vassals [Figure: COLA KINGDOM UNDER PARĀNTAKA I At its greatest extent *..* Towards the end [hatched box]]

c15.43

are found south of the latitude of Pondicherry.⁵⁹ The Noḷamba poḷalcōra II and his son Vīra Mahendra are seen from their inscriptions to have taken part in Kṛṣṇa's expedition against the Cōḷa, and shared the spoils. Poḷacōra calls himself 'lord of Kāñcī' in 965-6, and an undated inscription states that Vīra Mahendra was encamped at Kolar on his return from his conquest of the Cōḷa-nāḍu.59a There can be no question that the effect of Kṛṣṇa's invasion on the Cōḷa empire was ruinous, and that as a consequence of the blow in the north, much of the south also slipped out of Parāntaka's hands. The Cōḷa empire was no more; it had to be built up all over again.

c15.44

Only a few inscriptions from the neighbourhood of Tanjore attest the closing years of Parāntaka's reign, and they are dated in the forty-fifth and forty-sixth regnal years of Parāntaka.⁶⁰ An inscription from Vanamaladinne in the Punganur taluk of Chittoor district is dated in the 48th year of Parāntaka, A.D. 955. This may mean that the king lived at least up to that year.60a

c15.45

He had many wives, of whom the names of no fewer than eleven occur in his inscriptions. Kōkkiḷān⁶¹ was the name of the mother of Rājāditya, called also Kōdaṇḍarāma, the eldest son of Parāntaka who died in the battle of Takkōlam. Another queen of Parāntaka, a Kēraḷa princess,⁶² the mother of Ariñjaya, deserves special notice as her marriage, contracted possibly in Āditya's lifetime, not only gave proof of the friendly political relations that obtained between the Cōḷa and Kēraḷa rulers, but apparently furnished the occasion for a large influx of Malaiyāḷis into the Cōḷa country in search of service under the king and his sons. Veḷḷangumaran, the Kēraḷa general of Rājāditya, who built a temple in Grāmam was only the leading example⁶³ of a large class of less known immigrants figuring as donors of small charitable gifts in the inscriptions of the period. Besides Rājāditya, Parāntaka had four other sons: Gaṇḍarāditya, Arikulakēsari, Uttamaśīli and Arindigai or Ariñjaya of the plates. One daughter of his, Vīramādēvi, called also queen of Gōvinda Vallavaraiyar, is mentioned;⁶⁴ and it is likely that another, Anupamā, was married to the chieftain of Koḍumbāḷūr. That Parāntaka was fond of many high-sounding titles⁶⁵ is clear from his inscriptions, amongst which the most noteworthy, in this as well as in other respects, are the celebrated records of the twelfth and fourteenth years of his reign dealing with the constitutional arrangements of the Sabhā of Uttaramērūr.⁶⁶ The Karandaí plates (v. 21) stress his promotion of agricultural prosperity by the digging of numerous irrigation canals all over the country. He performed several *hēmagarbhas* and *tulābhāras*, and gave *brahmadēyas*.⁶⁷ The Tiruvālangāḍu plates describe Parāntaka as the bee at the lotus feet of Śiva (Purāntaka), and they and the Leyden grant concur in stating that he covered with gold the Śiva temple of Cidambaram.⁶⁸ In fact Parāntaka’s reign was a great epoch in the history of South Indian temple architecture, and the work of temple-building begun by Āditya was continued vigorously during the best part of his reign. We have also much valuable and interesting evidence from the inscriptions on the details of administration, central and rural, on the state of religious faith and so on. These matters have been reserved for detailed study at a later stage.

c15.46

¹ *PK.* p. 78.

c15.47

² Was it an accident that Āditya’s Pāṇḍya contemporary was a Parāntaka Vīranārāyaṇa, and that Āditya’s son also had the names Parāntaka and Vīranārāyaṇa? Or was it more common then to name the first children after their maternal grandparents than it is now?

c15.48

³ 465 of 1918 is dated 45 yr.; Krishna Sastri is sure that year 46 is clear in 15 of 1895; 200 of 1931-2 bears the yr. 48, *ARE.* II 11. This is held by A. S. Ramanatha Aiyar to be an error due to ignorance on the part of the engraver, *E.I.* xxv. p. 38.

c15.49

⁴ The date in 29 of 1907 is not so clear, but see 157 of 1928 and 11 of 1931.

c15.50

⁵ 446 of 1917. The copper-plates furnish little assistance in the study of these campaigns; the Tiruvālangāḍu plates, however, give some information which is borne out by the contemporary account given by the Udayēndiram plates of Ganga Pṛthivīpati II. The stone inscriptions of Parāntaka and the *Mahāvaṃsa* provide a fairly clear and cogent account of what happened.

c15.51

⁶ *CV.* Ch. 52, vv. 70 ff.

c15.52

⁷ *SII* ii. No. 76 vv. 9-11.

c15.53

⁸ 331 of 1927. *ARE.* 1927, II 10 seeks to effect a weak reconciliation between the new evidence and Venkayya’s account of the wars by suggesting that this title was assumed after Vēḷūr (Veḷḷūr) and fully justified only later—a curious instance of academic orthodoxy. See, also *SII*, iii, Introdn. p. 11. No. 332 of 1927 is a Rājakēsari record, not one of Parāntaka, as stated in *ARE.* 1927, App. C.

c15.54

9. 231 of 1926. The Pāṇḍya did not die, as stated in *ARE.* 1926 II, 16. There must be some mistake here. The actual phrase in the inscriptions is '*aṣṭigaḍai śeyda ñānṟu.*'

c15.55

10. *SII.* iii. No. 99. Another inaccuracy here—the Ceylonese king did not come to the fight himself, according to the *MV.*

c15.56

11. *CV.* Ch. 53 vv. 5 ff.

c15.57

12. Meaning evidently his own Cōḷa throne, in addition to the Pāṇḍyan recently captured by him. See Geiger, *CV.* i p. 172 n. 1.

c15.58

13. No. 51.

c15.59

14. *PK.* p. 79.

c15.60

15. *CV.* Ch. 53, vv. 41 ff.

c15.61

16. See Geiger, *CV.* i p. 176 n. 4. Also ii p. xx n. 18. It must be noted that Venkayya's proof that it is only in his latest inscriptions of 943|4 to 947|8 that Parāntaka calls himself 'Conqueror of Ceylon' no longer holds good; and the date 948 accepted by Geiger for this invasion is not so trustworthy as it appeared to Hultzsch. (See 332 and 331 of 1927 of years 8 and 16 respectively of Parāntaka). The *MV.* goes on to add that a new Senāpati of Udaya 'laid waste the borderland of the Cōḷa king and forced him with threats to restore all that he had carried away' as booty. What exactly is meant by the 'borderland' is not clear.

c15.62

17. *SII.* iii 96.

c15.63

18. See *ARE.* 1908, II 84 ff.

c15.64

19. *SII.* iii p. 449.

c15.65

20. We have only one inscription (129 of 1907, Pd. 14), its beginning lost, giving the genealogy of these chieftains for eight generations or so. It is probable that there were collateral branches of which we have as yet no information and if, failing to allow for this possibility, we seek to accommodate all the inscriptions in the genealogy of this single record, we come across a number of difficulties not easily settled. It should also be borne in mind that a title like Tennavan Iḷangōvēḷār may have been borne by several persons, and no identification can be confidently based on the recurrence of such titles in different inscriptions. At any rate, if Pūdi Vikramakēsari was, as there are strong reasons to believe, the contemporary of Āditya II who 'took the head of Vīrapāṇḍiyan,' it is difficult to believe that he was also the Tennavan Iḷangōvēḷar whose daughter Ādicca Piḍāri had become the wife of Arikulakēsari as early as the third year (A.D. 910) of Parāntaka I. These chiefs were Kaḷḷar (140 of 1928 Parāntaka I, year 17), and had dynastic connections with the Muttaraiyar (337 of 1904, Pd. 45). Iḍaṅgaḷi-Nāyanār was believed to be of their family (*Periya Purāṇam*), *contra* Nambi Āṇḍār Nambi.

c15.66

21. *EI.* iv pp. 221-5.

c15.67

22. *SII.* ii No. 76, v. 9.

c15.68

²³ v.

c15.69

⁵⁸ Note the phrase *ajitam-narādhipaiḥ*. See also *EI.* xxvi pp. 212-4. The new title is borne by Parāntaka in his 4th year (241 of 1943-4).

c15.70

²⁴ On the Bāṇas see *EI* xi, pp. 229-40 and xvii pp. 1-7; I follow Hultzsch's table (*EI.* xvii p. 3) for the numbering of the Bāṇa kings.

c15.71

25. Parivi and Nandagiri occupy in late Bāṇa records a position similar to that of Uṟaiyūr and the Kāvērī in the Telugu Cōḍa records. It may be observed that Parigi answers to the description of the Bāṇa country being to the west of the Āndhra.

c15.72

27. 235, 267, 268 of 1902 (*EI.* vii pp. 142 ff) and 16, 743 of 1905; *ARE.* 1905 II, 28.

c15.73

28. Nos. 160, 236 of 1912, the former being *SII.* iii 108.

c15.74

29. *ARE.* 1913 II 18 and *SII.* iii 108 (Introdn.) make Śiṭpuḷi a personal name, and suggest that Śiṭpuḷi was the general of Bhīma. But 79 of 1921 (Rājak. 6) mentions Śiṭpuḷi-nāḍu and Pāki-nāḍu. The latter is well known as Pāka-rāṣṭra. It is doubtful if Cāḷukya Bhīma's territory could have extended up to Śiṭpuḷi-nāḍu between Venkaṭagiri and Gūdūr (Rapur tq.) It may have been an attempt of Parāntaka to subdue the Telugu Cōḍas. *NI.* R. 47 (p. 1267) l. 34 mentions Ceḍupulināḍu.

c15.75

30. See Ch. viii below, under Ariñjaya.

c15.76

31. Rangachari says that Pṛthivīpati became a vassal of Kṛṣṇa III, and was living in a.d. 953 (NA. 586). In saying this, he overlooks Hultzsch's warning that the Attimallar of this record is a different person (*EI.* vii p. 195).

c15.77

32. 332 of 1912.

c15.78

33. Rice *Mysore and Coorg*, p. 45.

c15.79

34. A. S. Ramanatha Aiyar has argued (*EI.* xxvi pp. 230-5) that Govinda IV when he was deposed from the Rāṣṭrakūṭa throne found refuge with his father-in-law Parāntaka I, that Parāntaka made a futile attempt to restore Govinda IV—an attempt which ended in the defeat and death of Govinda, and that Kṛṣṇa III's invasion of the Cōḷa was a reprisal against Parāntaka's attempt to support his father Amoghavarṣa's enemy Govinda. That Viramādevi, a daughter of Parāntaka, was a queen of Govinda IV is rendered probable by 245 and 246 of 1921. But this is too slight a basis for the speculative reconstruction offered, and Kṛṣṇa's invasion is explained quite easily on other grounds.

c15.80

35. 1 of 1896 *ARE.* 1896, paragraph 6; *EI.* iv pp. 178-9.

c15.81

36. *ASI.* 1905-6 p. 181. Also 180 of 1921. *ARE.* 1921, II 25.

c15.82

37. 739 of 1905.

c15.83

38. 735 of 1905 dated Saturday, 14th January a.d. 943.

c15.84

39. 374 of 1902.

c15.85

40. 280 of 1902.

c15.86

41. 428 of 1902; *EI.* vii p. 194.

c15.87

42. No. 236 of 1913 dates his death in Ś. 889 (a.d. 967). It is possible he started rule somewhat earlier. His earliest inscription is dated, however, a.d. 940; perhaps the conflict with Lalleya, the rival claimant to his throne, filled the early years.

c15.88

⁴³ *ASI.* 1908-9. p. 122 n. 2.

c15.89

⁴⁴ *Contra.* T. A. Gopinatha Rao, *EI.* xv pp. 51-2 and *EI.* xviii p.

c15.90

²⁴ See also *ARE.* 1911, II, 22.

c15.91

45. Though not a happy term this may be retained as familiar to students of South Indian epigraphy.

c15.92

47. 419 of 1903; 184, 313 of 1906; 149 of 1916.

c15.93

48. 375 of 1909. This record is availed of by A. S. Ramanatha Aiyar in his rather fanciful reconstruction of Cōḷa-Rāṣṭrakūta relations, *EI.* xxvi p. 232. 81 of 1941-2 is said to be dated 7 yr.; but this is very doubtful, *ARE.* 1939|40—1942|43 II 23.

c15.94

49. K. V. S. Aiyar, *EI.* xii p. 123; xix pp. 82 ff. *ARE* 1926 II 12.

c15.95

50. See Rangachari, p. 217; *Studies* pp. 178-9; 197.

c15.96

51. It may also be noticed that while in some records Kannaradēva is given the title *Kacciyum-Tañjaiyum-koṇḍa*, in others he is simply called by his name without any distinguishing title. But as the range of dates and the provenance of both sets of these records are identical, and as no palaeographical differences divide the two groups, they may both be treated as relating to Kṛṣṇa III.

c15.97

52. *EI.* iv, p. 331 n. 3.

c15.98

53. This important inscription has been edited twice by Fleet—*EI.* ii pp. 167 ff; vi pp. 50-7. The text has: '*Mūvaḍi-Cōḷa-Rājādityana mēlē (ba)*ndu *Takkōlal-doḷ kādi kondu bijayam-jeyyuttu ildu*' (1, 4); and '*Kannaradevam Cōḷanam kāduvandu Būtugam Rājādityanam bisugeye kaḷḷan-āgi guri* (suri) *-giridu kādi kondu Banavase Pannirccāsiramum* etc.' (ll. 20-1).

c15.99

On both occasions Fleet translated the second extract so as to imply treachery on the part of Būtuga. And in discussing No. 181 of 1912, a most baseless conjecture was hazarded in *ARE.* 1913, II, 17 that Caturānana Paṇḍita betrayed his master and friend Rājāditya to his foes. But the phrase '*bisugeye kallan-āgi*' must really be read: '*bisugeye kaḷanāgi*'; the words '*bisuge*' and '*kaḷan*' mean respectively the howdah fastened to the back of elephants for riding on, and field (of battle). Būtuga made the howdah of Rājāditya's elephant itself the battlefield. This interpretation is borne out by the Cōḷa inscriptions. The larger Leyden grant says: '*Rājādityas-sa vīro ravikulatilakaḥ Kṛṣṇarājam sasainyam saṁkṣobhyākṣobhyam-ājau \* \* nāgēndra-skandha-vartī vidaḷita-hṛdayaḥ \* \* vīralokaṁ-jagāma*,' a clear statement which leaves not the slightest room for the suspicion of treachery on the part of Rājāditya's opponent. See *JRAS.* 1909, pp. 443-6. Other Cōḷa inscriptions from Kumbakōnam and Tirunāgēśvaram mention the 'king who died on the back of an elephant.' *ARE.* 1912, II, 14, Fleet's old mistake is repeated in the *Kadambakula* (Bombay, 1931), p. 86.

c15.100

⁵⁴ v, 54.

c15.101

⁵⁵ *ASSI.* iv. pp. 206-7, ll. 42-45; *EI.* xxii.

c15.102

⁵⁶ 338, 356 of 1902 (Tirunāmanallūr). See also *ARE.* 1939-40—1942-43 II, 28.

c15.103

⁵⁷ *EI.* iii p. 179-80. Also the Kūdlūr plates of Mārasimha (A.D. 963) l. 88 ff. *MAR.* 1921, pp. 11, 26.

c15.104

59. Al-Birūni seems to say that Tanjore was in ruins and that in consequence the Cōḷa king built a new capital. Sewell, *Antiquities* ii p. 155. Is this a late reference to the effects of Kṛṣṇa's inroad, or merely the assignment of a wrong reason for the foundation of the new capital at Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-Śōḻapuram?

c15.105

59a. *ARE.* 1913 II 14.

c15.106

60. Nos. 465 of 1918, 15 of 1895, and 135 of 1931. Krishna Sastri has said (*SII.* v, p. 226 n) that in 15 of 1895 the figure 6 is clear on the stone, and this must set at rest any lingering doubts on this question of fact. See also *ASI.* 1908-9, p. 122 n 1. The larger Leyden grant (v. 19) categorically asserts that Rājāditya began to rule after the death of Parāntaka, and then proceeds to give an account of Rājāditya's war with Kṛṣṇa. I am inclined to accept the contemporary stone records as more valid evidence than the statement in a copper-plate grant dated after more than half-a-century of the utmost confusion.

c15.107

60a. 200 of 1931-32; *ARE.* 1931-2 II 11. A. S. Ramanatha Aiyar (*EI.* xxv pp. 35 ff.) has argued by a process of elimination that Parāntaka I lost his life in war in the south fighting against Vīra Pāṇḍya 'who took the head of the Cōḷa' and that this happened in A.D. 953-54. He supposes that the regnal year in the Vanamaladinne record is due to the fact 'that the recent news of the death of the Cōḷa king had not percolated so far north, at the time that record was incised' (p. 38). But it may with equal propriety be suggested that the record is a valuable testimony to the continued resistance of the people of the locality to Kṛṣṇa's intrusion and to their loyalty to Parāntaka who was still alive and ruling.

c15.108

61. 335 of 1902. Gopinatha Rao thinks that this queen and Parāntaka are named among the donors in the Huzur Treasury Plates of Tiruvalla. (*TAS.* ii. 141). But this is doubtful.

c15.109

62. Anbil vv. 22-3. *SII.* ii p. 383 v. 8.

c15.110

63. Iravi Nīli, the daughter of the Cēra King, Vijayarāga, is another. She gave 30-*kaḻañju* of gold for a lamp in the Tiruvorṟiyūr temple. (*SII.* iii No. 103).

c15.111

64. Nos. 245-6 of 1921 (year 31).

c15.112

65. T. A. Gopinatha Rao (*EI.* xv. p. 50), basing himself on 110 of 1895 suggests that Vikramaśōḻa Iḷangōvēḷār of that record must have been Parāntaka. If that be so, the name Paḻuvēṭṭaraiyar favours the supposition, the record must be one of Āditya I, as Iḷangōvēḷār would not apply to Parāntaka in the record of any other sovereign. Then the interval between this record mentioning the marriage of Parāntaka and his death would be eighty years (34 *plus* 46) at least, which looks improbable. There were many Paḻuvēṭṭaraiyars, and Iḷangōvēḷār is not the same as Iḷangō. Perhaps Vikrāmaśōḻa Iḷangōvēḷār was only a minor chieftain of some feudatory family.

Linked texts (4)

பெரிய புராணம் — Cēkkiḻār, Tamil
Aṉpil plates, time of Sundara Cōḻa, year 4 — Tamil
Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli
South Indian Inscriptions