The Colas c16.s2.56

c16.s2.56

³⁹ *EI*. xxvi pp. 82-4. By his recent researches, late A. S. Ramanatha Aiyar has generally confirmed the chronological scheme put forward here for the first time. But still there is some loose thinking afoot. Ramanatha Aiyar himself says that because Sundara Cōḷa gets the title *Pāṇḍiyanaic-curam-iṟakkina* in a record of his seventh year, the conflict with Vīra Pāṇḍya must have taken place only about A.D. 946; and then makes this the basis for rejecting 956 for Āditya II's accession and 937 for Vīra Pāṇḍya's on the ground: 'This would yield the inconsistent results that Āditya killed him (Vīra Pāṇḍya) in A.D. 957, and that his predecessor Sundara Cōḷa defeated him in A.D. 963'! And he is quoted with approval by M. Venkataramayya (*EI*. xxv pp. 36-7; xxviii pp. 89-90), who, however, has a glimpse of the greater historical probability of the rejected date. Again, V. Venkatasubba Aiyar has argued that because one chieftain mentions no overlord in a record of 959 and acknowledges Āditya II in another record dated in his second year, therefore Āditya's second year must be later than 959, his accession date cannot be 956, and he cannot be identical with Pārthivendravarman (*EI*. xxviii p. 269). How easy for men to become the slaves of their own *abhiniveśas*!