The Colas c16.s2.36

c16.s2.36

18. As a matter of fact, the discussion of the subject in *ARE.* 1912, II 17 with reference to No. 306 of 1911 (year 7) is very cautious. It is said that the title Maduraikoṇḍa implies that the king was a son of Parāntaka. On the other hand it is admitted that G. is nowhere 'clearly stated' to have been a Rājakēsari, and that it is difficult to see how the seventeen years of this king can be treated as the period of the rule of Gaṇḍarāditya when there are only twenty years for three reigns—Gaṇḍarāditya, Sundara Cōḷa Parāntaka II and Āditya II Karikāla. The conclusion is: 'In any case we may for the present provisionally presume that Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari is identical with Gaṇḍarāditya.' It is on the basis of this provisional conclusion that Krishna Sastri arranges the inscriptions in *SII.* iii, part 3. See p. 250 No. 114, introduction and note 4.