The Colas c16.s2.26

c16.s2.26

7. Krishna Sastri remarks: 'The epithet Āḻvār is taken to be one of respect. It may also indicate that he was dead at the time,' and then proceeds, 'If Arikulakēsari, Arikēsari, Ariñjaya or Arindama died before the 8th year of Gaṇḍarāditya as inferred already, the next king must have been a son of Arikulakēsari who, as the Anbil plates say, was Prince Sundara Cōḷa born of a Vaidumba princess.' (*SII.* iii, Introd. p. 14). But though Arikulakēsari may be identified with Ariñjaya, there is nothing to show that he predeceased Gaṇḍarāditya. We know that, in many records of Rājarāja I, his elder sister Kundavai is called Āḻvār 'during her life-time. Further, seeing that Gaṇḍarāditya and Sundara Cōḷa who succeeded him were both Rājakēsarīs, Krishna Sastri suggests (ibid. n. 2) that the intervening Parakēsari must be identified with the infant son of Gaṇḍarāditya who, though chosen for succession, 'may have been too young at the time to succeed his father.' Ingenious, but not likely. See also *EI.* xv, p. 53 where Gopinatha Rao adopts the same arrangement, cutting out Ariñjaya and making Gaṇḍarāditya a Parakēsari who followed his elder brother Rājāditya Rājakēsari.