Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Colas c19: Chapter XI. The Successors of Rājēndra (A.D. 1044-70)

The Cōḷas c19

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XI. The Successors of Rājēndra (A.D. 1044-70)

c19.2

Under Rājarāja I, the real founder of the Cōḷa empire, and his talented son Rājēndra I, the usual line of conquest, which was from North to South, had been reversed, and the victorious tiger-banner carried far into the North. Rājēndra's sons, three of whom succeeded their father, one after another, on the Cōḷa throne, inherited an extensive empire, and on the whole, ably maintained its extent and prestige during their reigns. There was much hard, and occasionally fierce fighting, particularly against the Cāḷukẏas across the Tungabhadrā frontier, and the first of these three kings died on a battlefield in which the second was crowned immediately after his steadiness and valour had converted an almost certain defeat into a brilliant victory. There was trouble also from the south, the Pāṇḍya and Kēraḷa being always in league with the Ceylonese rulers, and waiting to take the fullest advantage of the difficulties that beset their suzerains elsewhere. Towards the end of this period, these troubles, together with others of a dynastic and possibly religious nature, brought about a political revolution which proved the salvation of the empire for well over a century thereafter. As will be shewn later, the exact circumstances under which the Cāḷukya-Cōḷa, Rājēndra, came to occupy the imperial Cōḷa throne are not easily determined; but there can be no two opinions on the consequences to the Cōḷa power of this turn of events. By introducing a fresh, and possibly more vigorous, yet closely related stock of kings to the rule of the empire, and by amalgamating, at a critical time the resources of the Eastern Cāḷukya kingdom with the Cōḷa, it ensured a continuous and active life for the empire of Rājarāja at a time when his descendants in the main line were overwhelmed in desperate conflicts of which they saw no end.

c19.3

The Kanyākumārī inscription¹ of Vīrarājēndra states expressly that Rājādhirāja was the eldest of the three sons of Rājēndra who succeeded him in order; this statement is confirmed by the inscriptions of the three reigns taken together; one record of the thirty-fifth year² of Rājādhirāja mentions the significant name *tambit-tuṇaiccōḷa-vaḷanāḍu*, which recalls distinctly the *praśasti* of Rājēndra II beginning *tirumagaḷ maruviya*. This *praśasti* gives a succinct account of how Rājēndra co-operated with his elder brother Rājādhirāja in the prolonged Cāḷukya war of the reign. Vīrarājēndra was doubtless identical with Vīra-Cōḷa,³ the younger brother of Rājēndradēva on whom he conferred the title Karikāla Cōḷa; in fact the W. Cāḷukya inscriptions call him generally Vīra. An inscription of Vīrarājēndra from the Ramnad district⁴ refers to his father (*ayyar*) who conquered Gangai, Pūrvadēśam and Kaḍāram. From a study of the dates of the inscriptions, it is seen that there is a large measure of overlapping among the reigns, a feature which should cause no surprise after the conjoint rule for over twenty-five years of Rājādhirāja with his father. The latest regnal year of Rājādhirāja mentioned in his records is the thirty-sixth,⁵ falling in A.D. 1053-4. The approximate date of the accession of Rājēndra II has been fixed from his inscriptions as May 28, A.D. 1052.⁶ Likewise, the highest regnal year of Rājēndra II is twelve, taking his rule up to A.D. 1064. Vīrarājēndra's accession, however, took place sometime in A.D. 1062-3⁷ which is counted in his records as his first year.⁸ Rājakēsari Rājamahēndradēva, whose inscriptions do not carry his reign beyond the third year, must be found a place before the accession of Vīrarājēndra-dēva. His brief *praśastis* tell us little beyond the fact that he upheld the code laid down by Manu for the administration of the land; but even this statement is not altogether valueless as it is closely corroborated by the *Kalingattupparaṇi*⁹ which says just the same thing even more forcibly, without mentioning any other fact, about a king whom it places between the sovereign who crowned himself on the field of Koppam (Rājēndra II) and the victor of Kūḍal-śangamam (Vīrarājēndra). Further confirmation of the position assigned to Rājamahēndra is found in a single inscription of his stating that the king 'by a war-elephant caused Āhavamalla to turn his back (on the bank of) the winding river.'¹⁰ It seems possible that Rājamahēndra was the son of Rājēndra II mentioned in an inscription of the ninth year of that king¹¹ under the name Rājēndra, and that when, soon after, he was chosen heir-apparent he assumed the title Rājamahēndra to distinguish himself from his father Rājēndra-dēva and his grandfather Rājēndra-Cōḷa-dēva. Here again, the succession of two Rājakēsarīs, Rājamahēndra and Vīrarājēndra, must be explained as due to one of them having died as heir-apparent without ever ruling in his own right, and that the other was chosen to fill his place.¹² This period is brought to a close by the short and troubled reign of Parakēsarī Adhirājēndra, one of whose records dated in his third year¹³ mentions the eighth year of Vīrarājēndra. The succession and chronology of the period may, therefore, be summed up as follows:

c19.4

| (1) | Rājādhirāja I Rājakēsarī | a.d. 1018-1054 |
| (2) | Rājēndra II Parakēsarī younger brother of (1) | a.d. 1052-1064 |
| | Rājamahēndra Rājakēsarī son of (2) died as crown-prince | a.d. 1060-1063 |
| (3) | Vīrarājēndra Rājakēsarī (younger brother of 1 and 2) | a.d. 1063-1069 |
| (4) | Adhirājēndra Parakēsarī son of 3 (?) | a.d. 1067\|8-1070 |

c19.5

Rājādhirāja's *praśastis* are usually found in two forms, one of them rather short, commencing *tiṅgaḷēr-pera-vaḷar*, which records only the earlier achievements of the king and seems to have been stereotyped about the twenty-sixth year of his rule and repeated in that form in some of his later records. The longer form *tiṅgaḷēr-taru* has many variations and in fact it is seen to have gone through several editions, so to say, some giving more details of transactions only briefly mentioned in others.¹⁴ A few of the inscriptions of the later years mention fresh transactions not found in the earlier records;¹⁵ others simply repeat the older forms without making them up-to-date. Further, there is a *praśasti* beginning *tirukkoḍiyoḍu tyāgakkoḍi* giving no new information and confirming some of the details of the Cāḷukyan war found in other records.

c19.6

That Rājādhirāja assumed the title Vijayarājēndra after his triumphant entry into Kalyāṇapura has already been mentioned. There are, however, two records of Parakēsarī Vijayarājēndra which at first sight seem to present a baffling problem.¹⁶ In one of them, a Kōlār record¹⁷ of the thirty-fifth year, we must necessarily assume that Parakēsari is a mistake for Rājakēsari; for the high regnal year and the identity of the short *praśasti* in this record with that of Rājādhirāja beginning *Vīrapāṇḍiyan talaiyum*, the last variety of the *praśastis* found in Rājādhirāja's records, leave no room for any alternative. The other record from Pedda-Tippasamudram¹⁸ falls into the reign of Rājēndra II, the younger brother and successor of Rājādhirāja, as it is dated in Śaka 981, or A.D. 1057-8, and as we have no clear proof of Rājādhirāja having reigned beyond his 36th year, which would be A.D. 1054-5. Rājēndra II was a Parakēsari, and though this record appears to be unique in giving him the Vijayarājēndra title, it may be his. It should, however, be noticed that a Rājādhirāja inscription, doubtfully dated in the 38th year, from Tiruvorṟiyūr,¹⁹ just renders it possible that this record is also his. The battle of Koppam, in which Rājādhirāja lost his life, took place according to Fleet 'shortly before the 20th January, A.D. 1060,' as a record dated in Śaka 981 (expired) mentions that Sōmēśvara had then returned from 'a conquest of the southern countries and of the Cōḷa.'²⁰ Therefore, the Pedda-Tippasamudram record of Śaka 981 may also be, after all, another instance of a Rājādhirāja record giving him the Parakēsari title by a mistake. In any case we have no reason to assume that there was an alteration in the official title of the king from Rājakēsari to Parakēsari,²¹ as there are many other records of the 35th and 36th years with the former title.

c19.7

The Ceylon war of Rājādhirāja briefly mentioned in the last chapter may now be considered in more detail. Some of the earlier inscriptions²² of Rājādhirāja briefly record that the king of Laṅkā, the garlanded Vallava, and the king of the Kannakucciyar (people of Kanauj), suffered decapitation at the hands of Rājēndra. The more detailed account of the occurrences as found in some of the later records²³ is as follows:—

c19.8

'With a single unequalled army (he) took the crown of Vikramabāhu, the king of the people of Laṅkā on the tempestuous ocean; the crown of large jewels, (belonging to) the lord of Laṅkā, Vikrama-Pāṇḍyan, who, having

c19.9

lost the whole of the southern Tamiḷ country out of fear of himself (Rājadhirāja)²⁴ had entered Īḷam (surrounded by) the seven oceans; the beautiful golden crown of the king of Simhaḷa, Vīra-Salāmēghan, who, believing that Īḷam (surrounded by) the ocean was superior to the beautiful Kannakucci (Kānyakubja) which belonged to him, had entered (the island) with his relatives and (those of) his countrymen who were willing (to go with him),²⁵ and had put on the brilliant crown; who, having been defeated on the battle-field and having lost his black elephant, had fled ignominiously; and who, when (the Cōḷa king) seized his elder sister along with (his) wife²⁶ and cut off the nose of (his) mother, had returned in order to remove the disgrace (caused) thereby, and, having fought hard with the sword, had withered²⁷ in a hot battle; and the extremely brilliant crown of large jewels, (belonging to) Śrī Vallavan (Śrī Vallabha) Madanarājan, who had come of the family of Kannaran (Kṛṣṇa) and had become the proud king of Īḷam.'²⁸

c19.10

The *Mahāvaṃsa* shows clearly that the years following the deportation of Mahinda V by Rājēndra and the annexation of 'the whole of Īḻamaṇḍalam' to the Cōḷa empire A.D. 1017 were filled with risings on the part of the Sinhalese subjects against the new Cōḷa rulers followed by reprisals on their part. The independent testimony of the Ceylonese chronicle not only confirms the account of Rājādhirāja's records in its essential features, but furnishes much welcome assistance in fixing the chronology of events which, though spread over several years and apparently connected with more than one campaign, seem to have been grouped together to form a convenient section in the *praśasti* of Rājādhirāja. The *Mahāvaṃsa* affirms²⁹ that the first outbreak of the opposition to the Cōḷa rule in Ceylon occurred about twelve years after the capture of Mahinda V, when the Cōḷa wanted to gain control of Mahinda's son Kassapa, and that this revolt centred round Kassapa; Kassapa and his confederates succeeded in maintaining a contest for six months with the Cōḷa forces said to have been 95,000 strong; they 'killed a great number of Damiḷas' and compelled the rest to retire and take up 'their abode as before in Pulatthinagara.’ Thereupon, Kassapa began to rule the south-eastern portion of the island of Ceylon, the division known as Rohaṇa, under the title of Vikkamabāhu.³⁰ This war of six months preceding the accession of Vikkamabāhu took place about A.D. 1029, in the reign of Rājēndra I; but there is nothing to show that Rājādhirāja actually took part in it, though he might have done so.

c19.11.1

The Cōḷa inscriptions affirm that Vikkamabāhu lost his life in the Cōḷa war,³¹ and that his diadem fell into the hands of Rājādhirāja; the *Mahāvaṁsa*, however, says that he suddenly died of a disease in the twelfth year of his reign A.D. 1041 in the midst of extensive preparations for a Cōḷa war. It is possible that the Cōḷa panegyric is more boastful than true, though his crown may have been among the booty of the Cōḷas.³² Despite Rājēndra’s success against Mahinda V, therefore, the whole of Ceylon was held by the Cōḷas only for a short while, a period of about a decade, after which the province of Rohaṇa asserted its independence, and kept up a perpetual war against the Cōḷa province. In Rājādhirāja’s reign this struggle became very acute as every ruler that came after Vikkamabāhu was actuated by the desire to expel the Damiḷas from Ceylon. Neglecting the eight days’ rule of Kitti (A.D. 1041)³³ the ‘mighty Mahālāna-kitti’ who became king of Rohaṇa, ‘was vanquished in his third year (A.D. 1044) in battle against the Cōḷas, and with his own hand he cut his throat and so died a sudden death.³⁴ Thereupon the Damiḷas took the chief treasures, such as the diadem and the like and sent them to the Monarch of the Cōḷa land.’ It is not easy to identify Mahālānapitti with any of the four Sinhalese rulers mentioned by name in the Cōḷa inscription quoted above. Vikkamapaṇḍu (A.D.

c19.11.2

1044-47) was according to the *Mahāvaṁsa*³⁵ the only son of Mahālānapitti, who, having left his country through fear and lived for a time in the Dulu country, returned to Rohaṇa when he heard of the fate of his father, and was killed, after a short rule, in a fight with Jagatīpāla. The Cōḷa inscription, on the contrary, implies that he was a Pāṇḍya prince who had once ruled over the southern Tamil country, and was compelled by Rājādhirāja himself to abandon Southern India and seek his fortune in Ceylon, where he became king. As the Pāṇḍyan and Ceylonese dynasties were at this time in close political and dynastic alliance with each other and with the Kēraḷas, and were united in their common opposition to Cōḷa ascendancy,³⁶ we have perhaps to assume that the two accounts supplement each other. Vikrama Pāṇḍya had apparently a Sinhalese father and a Pāṇḍya mother: his early career in the Pāṇḍya country is represented, not quite accurately, by the *Mahāvaṁsa*, as a sojourn in the Dulu country, or possibly, this sojourn in the Dulu land was an interlude between the Pāṇḍyan and the Ceylonese phases of his career. Whatever that may be, there is no doubt that the Cōḷa inscriptions and the *Mahāvaṁsa* speak of one and the same prince here, and that while the Ceylonese account of the manner of his death is not contradicted by the Cōḷa records, it is quite possible that his diadem also fell into the hands of the Cōḷas as is claimed by them. Of Jagatīpāla (A.D.

c19.11.3

1047-51), the *Mahāvaṁsa* says³⁷ that he was ‘a sovereign’s son’ from Ayōdhyā, and that after coming to Ceylon he ‘slew Vikkamapaṇḍu in battle and ruled as a mighty man in Rohaṇa for four years. Him also the Cōḷas slew in battle and sent the Mahēsi with her daughter and all the valuable property to the Cōḷa kingdom.’ If we overlook the discrepancy about the place of origin, Kānyakubja according to the Cōḷa records and Ayōdhyā according to the *Mahāvaṁsa*, there is a striking similarity in the fortunes of Jagatīpāla of the chronicle and Vīra-Salāmēghan of the inscriptions, and it may be concluded that we have here only one prince mentioned under two different names in our sources.³⁸ But this conclusion is not unassailable; the death of Vīra-Salāmēghan is mentioned in an inscription dated towards the end of A.D. 1046;³⁹ the most critical study of the *Mahāvaṁsa* has led to the conclusion that Jagatīpāla began to rule in A.D. 1047 and went on till four years later. So that, after all, the differences in the names and the places of origin of these two princes may mean that they were two different persons who had little in common with each other besides having attained some celebrity in Ceylon as opponents of the Cōḷa regime and met very similar fates at the hands of their antagonists. How these adventurers from Northern India came to Ceylon in search of a career is not easy to explain satisfactorily at present.

c19.11.4

Śrī Vallabha Madanarāja, the fourth and last of the princes mentioned in the Cōḷa inscriptions, has been identified with king Parakkama of the *Mahāvaṁsa* who was slain in fight with the Cōḷas.⁴⁰ This identification is also to be accepted with caution.

c19.12

Madanarāja was a Vallabha (of the line of Kannara) by descent; Parakkama, on the contrary, was the son of the Paṇḍu king, i.e., Vikkamapaṇḍu. Moreover, the death of Parakkama occurred about A.D. 1053, nearly seven years after the date of Rājādhirāja's inscription (A.D. 1046) in which Madanarāja is mentioned.⁴¹

c19.13

This comparison of the epigraphical account of the Ceylonese war in the records of Rājādhirāja with the events as chronicled in the *Mahāvaṃsa* thus points to the need for caution in working the two accounts into a continuous story of the relations between the Cōḷa empire and that part of Ceylon which was maintaining a vigorous struggle for its independence against great odds. Only two of the kings in the inscriptions of Rājādhirāja can be recognised in the *Mahāvaṃsa* viz., Vikramabāhu and Vikrama-Pāṇḍya. Vīra-Salāmēgha and Śrī Vallabha Madanarāja are known only to the Cōḷa inscriptions, but apparently are not mentioned in the *Mahāvaṃsa*. On the contrary, Jagatīpāla and Parakkama of the *Mahāvaṃsa*, who figured in the later stages of the war of independence and laid down their lives in that war, do not find a place in the Cōḷa inscriptions.⁴² The inscriptions of Rājādhirāja's successor Rājēndra II show that he too had a hand in the suppression of the Ceylonese risings. Records of his fourth year,⁴³ A.D. 1055, state that 'he despatched an army to Ceylon, where the king Vīra-Salāmēgha was decapitated and the two sons of the Ceylon king Mānābharaṇa were taken prisoners.' Later records of Rājēndradēva mention only Vīra-Salāmēgha.⁴⁴ Rājēndradēva's claim is proved by the presence of an inscription of his reign at Sangili-Kanadarāva in Ceylon.⁴⁵ Despite Vīra-Salāmēgha being called 'King of the Kalingas of the strong army,'⁴⁶ there is no reason to distinguish him from the '*Kannakucciyarkāvalan*' of the Rājādhirāja inscriptions. Surviving the disgrace inflicted on the members of his family, his sister and mother and wife, by the forces of Rājādhirāja, and the defeat in the 'hot battle' that followed thereafter when he sought to avenge the disgrace, this unfortunate prince apparently fell a victim to another Cōḷa inroad possibly led by Rājēndradēva some years later.⁴⁷ The identity of Mānābharaṇa, the king of the Ceylonese, whose two sons were captured by Rājēndra, is not easy to make out, though the suggestion may be offered that he was no other than the king who joined the confederacy of three southern kings whose opposition to Cōḷa rule in the Pāṇḍya country was suppressed by Rājādhirāja in the lifetime of his father, in one of his early campaigns.⁴⁸ It may be observed that Indian coins found in Ceylon include issues of Rājādhirāja and Rājēndra,⁴⁹ and that Cōḷa inscriptions found in Ceylon, though not numerous or well preserved, carry us right to the end of the period covered in this chapter.⁵⁰ We may, therefore, conclude that the bulk of the island of Ceylon constituted an administrative division of the Cōḷa empire, while the south-western part of the island, called Rohaṇa in the *Mahāvaṁsa*, kept up an incessant warfare for the restoration of Sinhalese independence. Prince Kitti who assumed the title Vijayabāhu in A.D. 1058 was the leader of this effort. The *Mahāvaṁsa* and the inscriptions of Vīrarājēndra give some account of it.⁵¹ Like all conquerors, the Cōḷas were only exasperated by the most natural desire of the Sinhalese to be rid of them, and seem often to have adopted savage methods of repression such as transportation, decapitation and mutilation, even against the women of the royal family of Ceylon. After the accession of Kulōttunga to the Cōḷa throne in A.D. 1070, Vijayabāhu I succeeded at last where so many of his predecessors had failed and restored the independence of Ceylon; a detailed account of the steps leading to the success of Vijayabāhu belongs to the reign of Kulōttunga.

c19.14

A second war against Sōmēśvara was undertaken by Rājādhirāja between A.D. 1044 and 1046. The Maṇimaṅgalam inscription⁵² of 3 December, A.D. 1046 gives a short account of this campaign stating that the Cōḷa king defeated in battle several subordinate chieftains⁵³ of the Cāḷukya forces, and destroyed the palace of the Cāḷukyas in the town of Kampili. Other inscriptions, of which the earliest is dated in the thirtieth year of Rājādhirāja, furnish some additional information about what followed the destruction of the palace at Kampili.⁵⁴ Another engagement, said to be the third of its kind, followed at Pūṇḍūr, described as a *kaḍaka-mānagar* or cantonment city, on the left bank of the Kṛṣṇā river, in which several Telugu chieftains including the brothers of Telinga Viccaya, his mother and son, vassals of Sōmēśvara, were made prisoners of war together with numberless women; thereupon, the city of Pūṇḍūr was sacked by the Cōḻā army and razed to the ground, its site being ploughed with asses and sowed with *varāṭikai*, a kind of coarse millet; finally, the large palace at Maṇṇandippai was consigned to the flames, and a pillar of victory erected, bearing the emblem of the tiger. These occurrences, no doubt considerably exaggerated in the partial report of the Cōḻa records, must have taken place before a.d. 1048.

c19.15

Other records of the same period⁵⁵ give more details of this campaign. They mention the hot battle at ‘Pūṇḍi with the swelling waters’ in which Viccaya⁵⁶ fled in fear, abandoning his father and mother to the mercies of the Cōḻa army; when Āhavamalla, in his fear, sent messengers (for opening negotiations), they were rudely handled by the Cōḻa and were forced to carry on their persons inscriptions proclaiming the flight of Āhavamalla in fear; then, followed by his forces, the Cōḻa took his herd of elephants for bathing them in the three bathing ghats (*tuṟai*)—Śiṟutuṟai, Perunduṟai and Daivabhīmakasi, and engraved the emblem of the fierce tiger on hills marked by the boar sign of the enemy, and planted the pillar of victory;⁵⁷ he played games⁵⁸ with the kings who prostrated themselves at his feet, and raised aloft the banner of charity with that of the tiger distributing among the needy the ancient treasures captured from the enemy; he then defeated several leaders of enemy forces such as the Nuḷamba, Kālidāsa, Cāmuṇḍa, Kommaya and Villavarāja, beheaded the Gurjara king, sparing only those who sought his protection and restoring to them their diadems and their positions. At this point some records⁵⁹ introduce particulars not found in others. Though the gaps in the text are an obstacle to their full understanding, their trend is quite clear and they record the manner in which the messengers of Āhavamalla were rough handled. Two persons who accompanied a Peṟkaḍai, a high Cāḷukya official, were made the media of a studied and barbarous insult to the Cāḷukyas—one of them being compelled to wear a woman’s dress and the other having his head shaven so as to show five tufts; then they were named ‘the miserable Āhavamalli and Āhavamalla’ and sent adrift along with the Peṟkaḍai. The ancient city of Kalyāṇapuram was sacked soon afterwards, and its royal palace razed to the ground after its guards had been overpowered. And Rājādhirāja assumed in that city the title of Vijayarājēndra and performed a *vīrābhiṣeka*; this is confirmed by another inscription of a later date in Rājādhirāja's reign with a unique *praśasti* beginning *tirukkoḍiyoḍu*.⁶⁰ This record lays stress on the victory against Āhavamalla followed by the *vīrābhiṣeku* and the assumption of the Vijayarājēndra title. Again, at Dārāsuram in the Tanjore district can be seen even to-day a fine image of a *dvārapālaka* very different in the style of its workmanship from similar Cōḷa images, and bearing the inscription:

c19.16

1. *Svasti Śrī Uḍaiyār Śrī Vijayarājēndra-Dēvar*
2. *Kalyāṇapuram Erittu Koḍuvanda Tuvārapālakar*

c19.17

i.e. The door-keeper brought by Uḍaiyār Śrī Vijayarājēndradēva after burning Kalyāṇapuram.⁶¹

c19.18

There is, however, no mention in Sōmēśvara's inscriptions either of this campaign of Rājādhirāja or of the later war which, as we shall see, led to his death on the battle field of Koppam,⁶² and for all the vaunted successes of the Cōḷas, the Cāḷukyas seem to have retained their power unbroken. The provenance of the inscriptions of Sōmēśvara, of which several are dated records, shows that the extent of the Cāḷukyan empire on the side of the Tungabhadrā continued undiminished. From the Haḍagalli taluq of the Bellary district comes an inscription⁶³ of Trailōkyamalladēva (Sōmēśvara I) dated (Śaka 968) early in A.D. 1047 recording a gift by the chieftain Kāḷidāsa, whose name figures also among the Telugu princelings⁶⁴ repulsed by the Cōḷa troops in one of the numerous fights of the time. Two other records⁶⁵ from the same region are dated in the next year, Śaka 969, of which one records a gift of land to a Viṣṇu temple by Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Gaṇḍarādityarasa, 'lord of Māhiṣmatīpura,' ruling the Sindavāḍi 1000, Beṇṇevūru 12 and Nuru-gaṇḍa as a vassal of Śōmēśvara. This chieftain may perhaps be identified with Kaṇḍar-dinakaran of the Cōḷa inscriptions.⁶⁶ Even if we do not accept the rhapsodies of Bilhaṇa over Sōmēśvara's conquest of Kāñcī or Vikramāditya's *digvijaya*, we must assume that the repeated incursions of the Cōḷas into Cāḷukyan territory, however annoying to the king and detrimental to the happiness of his feudatories and subjects, resulted in no permanent loss of territory. On the other hand, the bulk of the fighting is on Cāḷukyan territory, and in the course of the wars many large cíties seem to have suffered considerable damage from the destructive fury of the invader. The aim of the Cōḷas was apparently to reduce the Cāḷukyas to political subjection such as that of the Pāṇḍya, Kēraḷa and Vēngī kingdoms in this period. In this endeavour they failed totally. It would seem moreover that Sōmēśvara succeeded in extending his influence, at least temporarily, over Vēngī. His Mulguṇḍ inscription⁶⁷ dated A.D. 1053 speaks of one of his sons, Sōmēśvara-dēva, ruling over Beḷvōla 300 and Puḷigere 300, as bearing the title Vēngīpura-varēśvara. And there is found in Drākṣārāma, as already noted, a record of the same king⁶⁸ dated two years later (Śaka 977) registering a gift by a daughter of one of his ministers, Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa by name.

c19.19

Rājādhirāja undertook another expedition against the Cāḷukya in which he was accompanied by his younger brother Rājēndra, whom he had chosen as heir-apparent in preference to his sons who, though not mentioned by name, are said to have occupied fairly high positions in the administration of the empire.⁶⁹ We get a vivid and obviously true description of the occurrences in this campaign from the records of Rājēndra II. The earliest mention of these events is in a record⁷⁰ of his second year A.D. 1054; more details are given in the Maṇimangalam record of his fourth year, A.D. 1055. This inscription records⁷¹ that the Cōḷa king sought an occasion for war, invaded the Raṭṭamaṇḍalam and began ravaging the country; the proud Cāḷukya Āhavamalla became furious when he heard of this, and marching out with his forces he met the Cōḷa in pitched battle at Koppam, a celebrated *tīrtha* on the ‘Great River’. Fleet identified it

c19.20

with Khidrāpūr on the right bank of the river about thirty miles east by south from Kolhāpūr.⁷² That the Kṛṣṇā is the Great River *par excellence* and that Rājēndradēva advanced to Kolhapūr soon after the battle are factors in favour of this identification. But Kopbaḷ on the Hire-haḷḷa (great river) near Maski is now considered the more likely scene of the battle,⁷³ which was long and fiercely fought on either side. For determining its exact course we have to combine information furnished by some of Rājēndradēva's later inscriptions⁷⁴ with that of the Maṇimangalam record mentioned above. In the early stages of the battle, Rājādhirāja himself led the fight, Rājēndradēva apparently holding himself in reserve. At this stage, the Cāḷukya forces concentrated on the elephant on which the Cōḷa king was riding and wounded him mortally, so that he 'went up into the sky and became a sojourner in the country of Indra, where he was welcomed by the women of the sky.' Then the vast ocean-like army of the Kuntalas dashed themselves against the Cōḷa forces which, unable to withstand the onslaught, broke up and began to retreat in disorder. At this stage, Rājēndradēva entered the fray shouting out to his retreating forces: 'Fear not,' and pressed forward on his elephant like very Death against the Karṇāṭaka forces, restored order in his army and won a brilliant success by further fighting.⁷⁵ Once more, the enemy concentrated on the Cōḷa king's elephant, and 'the shower of (Āhavamalla's) straight arrows pierced the forehead of his elephant, his royal thigh, and (his) shoulders which resembled hillocks,' and many warriors who had mounted the elephant with him perished in the action. But Rājēndra was more fortunate than his brother; he succeeded in putting to death several leaders of the Cāḷukyan army including Jayasimha, the brother of the Cāḷukya⁷⁶, Pulakēśin, Daśapanman and Nanni-Nuḷumban. At last, 'the Śaḷukki was defeated,—with Vanníya-Rēvan⁷⁷, Tuttan, (who had) a powerful army, Kuṇḍamayan, whose army spoke (i.e., threatened) death, and other princes,—fled, trembling vehemently, with dishevelled hair, turning (his) back, looking round, and tiring (his) legs, and was forced to plunge into the Western ocean.' The elephants and horses and camels, the victorious banner of the boar and other insignia of royalty, together with the peerless Śattiyavvai, Śāngappai and all the other queens, a crowd of women and many other things abandoned by Āhavamalla on the field, became the booty of the Cōḷa king. Rājēndra then did a thing not known before,⁷⁸ and crowned himself king on

c19.21

the battle-field, when the wounds he had received in the fight were still fresh on his body. According to some of the inscriptions,⁷⁹ Rājēndra pressed on to Kolhāpūr, where he planted a *jayastambha*, before he returned to his capital Gaṅgāpurī.⁸⁰

c19.22

Such is the account of this celebrated fight at Koppam as narrated in the Cōḷa inscriptions.⁸¹

c19.23

The Cāḷukya inscriptions of the reign of Sōmēśvara tell us nothing of the battle of Koppam, and specific references to his warfare with the Cōḷas are few. In Śaka 981 (expired) he had returned from a conquest of the southern countries and a victory over the Cōḷa, and was camping in the Sindavāḍi country,⁸² a province ruled by a Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Ciddaṇa Cōḷa-Mahārāja. In Śaka 987 Viṣṇuvardhana Vijayāditya was encamped at Arasiyakere on his way to the conquest of the south under orders from the king.⁸³ Bilhaṇa's account has, as has been pointed out already, apparently no relation to facts and seems to be pure fabrication. Shortly after the close of Sōmēśvara's reign, however, we get two inscriptions,⁸⁴ both dated about A.D. 1071, giving an account of the Cōḷa invasion and the death of Rājādhirāja. Though the date is late and the Cōḷa king is not named, it is easy to infer from the Cōḷa inscriptions that the transactions recorded here relate to the war that led to the battle of Koppam and the death of Rājādhirāja.⁸⁵ The vigorous language employed by these records against the Cōḷa shows that the silence of the epigraphs of Sōmēśvara's reign is really due to a reluctance to record publicly in his life-time unfortunate events that caused so much misery and suffering in his country at the hands of the foreign invader. The *mahāpātaka* (great sinner) Tamilian known as Pāṇḍya-Cōḷa, we are told, took to an evil course (*nele geṭṭu*) and abandoning the ancestral observances of his family, entered the Beḷvōla country, burned several temples including Jinālayas erected by Gangaperumānaḍi, and was promptly punished for his wicked deeds by losing his life in battle and yielding his head to Sōmēśvara I. The Cōḷa account of the war, we may therefore conclude, is not by any means a greatly overdrawn picture of their achievement on this occasion.

c19.24

From the manner of his death Rājādhirāja came to be known as 'the king who died on the back of an elephant,' and he is so styled in the inscriptions of his successors.⁸⁶ From the time he was chosen as heir-apparent by his father to the day when he laid down his life on the field of Koppam, Rājādhirāja led the life of a warrior king and led many campaigns in person. His record strikes one as that of a born fighter and his warlike energy found full scope in the task of maintaining intact an overgrown empire that had risen on the ruin of old ruling families which never reconciled themselves to subjection to the Cōḷas. Some of this fighting, like the fatal expedition that led to Koppam, was of his own seeking. Rājādhirāja was first and foremost a soldier, and possibly his great military talent formed the reason for his being preferred for the succession against an elder brother of his. His performance of the *aśvamēdha* apparently in his father's life-time goes a long way to confirm this view.

c19.25

Briefly and without much detail, Rājadhirāja's *praśastis* tell us that he employed his father's brother, his own brothers, elder and younger, and his sons, in important offices of state and constituted them into subordinate rulers of particular regions. The star of Rājādhirāja's nativitiy was Pūrva-Phālgunī.⁸⁷ Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḷapuram was his capital.⁸⁸ His queens do not figure as prominently in his records as in those of other reigns; Trailōkyam Uḍaiyār was the title, rather than the name, of one of them,⁸⁹ who, if she was the same as the *nambirāṭṭiyār* mentioned in an inscription of the third year of Rājēndra II,⁹⁰ may be taken to have survived her husband. Besides the title Vijayarājēndra assumed by him at Kalyāṇapuram, Rājādhirāja had other surnames like Vīrarājēndra-varman,⁹¹ Āhavamalla-kulāntaka,⁹² and Kalyāṇapurangoṇḍa-śōḷa.⁹³ Mention is made of a spiritual preceptor (*gurudēvar*) of the king by name Adhikārikaḷ Pārāśaryan Vāsudēvanārāyaṇan, also called Ulagaḷanda-śōḷa Bramamārāyan;⁹⁴ one wonders if Ulagaḷanda-śōḷa was also a title of Rājādhirāja, and whether a revenue survey was undertaken, in his reign, of a part of the country.⁹⁵ Among the feudatories of Rājādhirāja mentioned in his records may be noticed Daṇḍanāyakan Śōḷan Kumaran Parāntaka Mārāyan alias Rājādhirāja Nīla-gaṅgaraiyar⁹⁶; a certain Piḷḷaiyār Śōḷa-vallabha-dēva whose wife was called Pañcavan-mahādēviyār⁹⁷; Daṇḍanāyaka Appimayya,⁹⁸ governor of Mahārājavāḍi 7000, who had Vallūru in the Cuddapah district as the seat of his government, and who may or may not be the same as Rājarāja Brahmādhirāja⁹⁹ who is mentioned in the very next year as ruler of the same province; and Piḷḷaiyār Viṣṇuvardhana-dēva, doubtless Rājarāja I of Vēngī, whose queen Ammangādēvi was the daughter of Rājēndra I and the sister of Rājādhirāja, and who is said to have presented, in A.D. 1050, three hundred Rājarāja-māḍas, gold coins of the Vēngī kingdom, to the temple at Tiruvaiyāṟu in the Tanjore district.¹⁰⁰ There was also Sēnāpati Rājēndraśōḻa Māvalivāṇarāyar, an official who apparently took his title from Rājēndra I under whom his public career might have begun, and who made a large endowment for higher education, of which more will be said in another place.

c19.26

⁸⁷ 244 of 1925.

c19.27

⁸⁸ 4 of 1899.

c19.28

⁸⁹ 136 of 1925; also 172 of 1894.

c19.29

⁹⁰ 144 of 1925.

c19.30

⁹¹ 172 of 1894.

c19.31

⁹² 5 of 1899.

c19.32

⁹³ 221 of 1917.

c19.33

⁹⁴ 421 of 1925.

c19.34

⁹⁵ cf. Ulagaḷandān-kāl in a record of his 30th year from Vṛddhācalam, 74 of 1918.

c19.35

⁹⁶ 256 of 1912.

c19.36

⁹⁷ 481 of 1925.

c19.37

⁹⁸ 449 of 1914.

c19.38

Turning now to an account of the reign of Rājēndradēva, whose independent rule must have commenced some time in A.D. 1054-5, his inscriptions contain, like those of his predecessor, a variety of forms of his *praśastis*. The shortest form is a summary narration of his successes beginning *Iraṭṭapāḍi* and found in his records from his second year¹⁰¹ onwards. Having much in common with this, but slightly more elaborate, is the form which begins *tiru (magaḷ) maruviya* also dating from his second year.¹⁰² But the chief *praśasti* of the reign is the long account beginning *tirumādu* (or *mādar*) *puviyenum*, first appearing in the fourth year,¹⁰³ and undergoing a revision in a subsequent edition, so to say, about the ninth year.¹⁰⁴ The main differences between the two forms in the treatment of the celebrated battle of Koppam have been dealt with in our account of that fight. The other points in which the later version differs from the earlier are: the omission of all other particulars of the Ceylon war except the mention of Vīra Salāmēghan; the definite statement that after proclaiming himself king on the battle-field in an unprecedented manner, Rājēndra returned to Gangāpurī; a slightly different account of the disposition of the administrative places held by the members of the royal family, given not at the beginning of the record as in the earlier version, but at a later stage; and an account, altogether new, of a fresh war with the Cāḷukyas.

c19.39

Both the *Kalingattupparaṇi* and the *Vikramaśōḻan-ulā* make pointed reference to Rājēndra's part in the battle of Koppam. The former records that the king fought fiercely in the battle and saved 'the world' by his success and celebrated his coronation on the field of battle.¹⁰⁵ The *ulā*, with intelligible hyperbole, says¹⁰⁶ that with the aid of a single elephant he captured a thousand of the enemy at Koppam.

c19.40

Among the king's relatives installed in different posts in the empire, the Maṇimaṅgalam inscription of the fourth year mentions no fewer than thirteen persons,—a paternal uncle (*śiriya-tātai*) of the king, four younger brothers of his, six sons and two grandsons.¹⁰⁷ The later records of the reign give a shorter list of only six persons so employed comprising the paternal uncle of the earlier record, his son—a new figure, only three of the four younger brothers mentioned before, and one son of the king Rājēndra-śōḻan; why the rest are omitted it is not easy to explain. One wonders if they had all died in the interval, or were found unfit even for subordinate employment. There seems to be no evidence whatever by which this can be settled. The fact deserves to be noted, however, in view of somewhat hasty statements which, on very slender evidence, fasten on Kulōttuṅga I a series of cold-blooded political murders calculated to clear his way to the Cōḷa throne.¹⁰⁸ The date of the shorter list would fall about A.D. 1061, nine years before the accession of Kulōttuṅga. Among the titles conferred on these members of the royal family, some like Cōḷa-Pāṇḍyan, Cōḷa-Gaṅgan and Cōḷa-Kēraḷan perhaps connoted the charge of the administration of the particular provinces named; others seem to have been merely titles of personal distinction giving no idea of the spheres of their duties, if any. Such titles are Irumaḍi-śōḷan, Karikāla-śōḻan, Uttama-śōḻan, Vijayālayan, and even names like Śōḻa-Ayōddhirājan and Śōḻa-Kannakucciyan. Only the Cōḷa-Paṇḍya viceroys seem to have left behind a number of inscriptions of their own in the land over which they held sway; but even in their case, it is extremely difficult to identify the particular viceroy from his records, the first viceroy Jaṭāvarman Sundara alone excepted.¹⁰⁹

c19.41

Rājēndra's son, also called Rājēndra-śōḷa in the records noticed above, was perhaps chosen heir-apparent some time about A.D. 1059, and assumed the title Rājakēsari Rājamahēndra. One inscription¹¹⁰ of his third year claims a victory for him against Āhavamalla at Muḍakkāṟu, and furnishes valuable confirmation of the events relating to another Cāḷukya war narrated in more detail in the inscriptions of the ninth year of his father. We learn from these latter¹¹¹ that the Cāḷukya, anxious to wipe out the disgrace that befell him on the field of Koppam, advanced with numerous forces led by Daṇḍanāyaka Vālādēva and other chieftains of the army, and a battle ensued on the banks of the Muḍakkāṟu (winding river) in which the Daṇ-

c19.42

ḍanāyaka and his followers fell, Irugaiyan and others were forced to retreat together with their king and the proud Vikkalan, unable to resist the vigorous attack of the Cōḷa forces. The inscription of Rājamahēndra says, likewise, that by a war-elephant, he caused Āhavamalla to turn his back on the Muḍakkāṟu. As it often happened that in the Cāḷukya wars several Cōḷa princes fought together on the same field, the inscriptions of successive rulers also often supplement each other. It is possible,

c19.43

therefore, that the future Vīrarājēndra was also present on this field; and if that was so, this battle must be treated as identical with that of Kūḍal-Śangamam of the records of Vīrarājēndra. A long description of this battle of Kūḍal-Śangamam, with some details not found in Rājēndra's records, is given in Vīrarājēndra's inscriptions even of the second year¹¹² (A.D. 1063-4). It seems hardly likely that two first-class engagements took place on the same field in less than three or four years. In some of his later inscriptions¹¹³ occur expressions which imply that Vīrarājēndra had taken part in the fight at Muḍakkāṟu before he became king, and that, in consequence, he came to be called Iraṭṭarāja-kula-kālan. If this view is correct, at least three Cōḷas were present at the battle of Kūḍal-Śangamam and took part in the fight: the king Rājēndradēva, the heir-apparent Rājamahēndra, and the king's brother Vīra-Cōḷa Karikāla (Vīrarājēndra), whose achievements came to be recorded in his inscriptions in detail when, after the death of Rājamahēndra, he became heir-apparent and later king.

c19.44

The account of the battle of Kūḍal-Śangamam and its antecedents given in the early inscriptions of Vīrarājēndra is as follows:¹¹⁴

c19.45

‘(He) drove from the battle-field in Gaṅgapāḍi into the Tuṅgabhadrā the Mahāsāmantas, whose strong hands (wielded) cruel bows, along with Vikkalan who fought under (his) banner at the head of the battle.¹¹⁵ (He) attacked and destroyed the irresistible, great and powerful army which he (viz., Vikkalan) had again despatched into Vēṅgai-nāḍu; fought the Mādaṇḍanāyakan Cāmuṇḍarājan and cut off his head;¹¹⁶ and severed the nose from the face of his (viz., Cāmuṇḍarāja's) only daughter, called Nāgalai, (who was) the queen of Irugaiyan and who resembled a peacock in beauty.

c19.46

‘The enemy, full of hatred, met and fought against (him) yet a third time, hoping that (his former) defeats would be revenged. (The king) defeated countless *sāmantas*, together with these (two) sons of Āhavamalla, who were called Vikkalan and Śiṅgaṇan, at Kūḍal-Śangamam on the turbid river. Having sent the brave van-guard in advance, and having himself remained close behind with the kings allied to him, he agitated by means of a single mast elephant that army (of the enemy), which was arrayed (for battle), (and which) resembled the northern ocean. In front of the banner troop,¹¹⁷ (he) cut to pieces Śiṅgan, (the king) of warlike Kōsalai; along with the furious elephants of his van-guard. While Kēśava-daṇḍanāyaka, Kēttaraśan, Mārayan of great strength, the strong Pōttarayan and (Irēccayan) were fighting, (he) shouted “(Follow) Mūvēndi, (who wears) a garland of gold!” and cut to pieces many *sāmantas*, who were deprived of weapons of war. Then Maduvaṇan, who was in command, fled; Vikkalan fled with dishevelled hair; Śiṅgaṇan fled, (his) pride (and) courage forsaking (him); Aṇṇalan and all others descended from the male elephant on which they were fighting in battle, and fled; Āhavamalla, too, to whom (they were) allied, fled before them. (The king) stopped his fast furious elephant, put on the garland of victory, (seized) his (viz., Āhavamalla's) wives, his family treasures, conches, parasols, trumpets, drums, canopies,¹¹⁸ white cāmaras, the boar-banner, the ornamental arch (*makara-tōraṇa*), the female elephant (called) Puṣpaka,¹¹⁹ and a herd of war-elephants, along with a troop of prancing horses, and, amidst (general) applause, put on the crown of victory, (set with) jewels of red splendour.'

c19.47

Irugaiyan is said in Rājēndradēva's records to have fled with Āhavamalla, Vikramāditya and others from the battle of Muḍakkāṟu; his wife suffered mutilation in the Vēṅgī fight of Vīrarājēndra with Cāmuṇḍarāya just before the battle of Kūḍal-Śangamam. And Vīrarājēndra is said to have 'seen the back of the hostile Śaḷukki' at Muḍakkāṟu¹²⁰ before he became king, and there seems to be no other campaign narrated in Vīrarājēndra's inscriptions that will explain this last reference unless it be the battle of Kūḍal-Śangamam, described in such detail and said to have taken place before his second year. It is difficult to resist the conclusion, already suggested, that the Muḍakkāṟu of the records of Rājēndradēva and Rājamahēndra and the Kūḍal-Śangamam of the early records¹²¹ of Vīrarājēndra refer to one and the same engagement. The same event is apparently once at least mentioned under the name of Muḍakkāṟu in the inscriptions of Vīrarājēndra himself.

c19.48

Where Rājēndra's records simply state that Āhavamalla desired to avenge himself for the defeat at Koppam and advanced in great force, those of Vīrarājēndra show us the extent of the progress made by the Cāḷukyas by recording the necessity for chasing them through Gaṅgapāḍi to the banks of the Tungabhadrā and thereby indicate how little the Cāḷukyas had suffered in the actual extent of the territory ruled by them even after Koppam. They also imply, by what they say about Cāmuṇḍarāya's movement against Vēṅgī, that an important, but unsuccessful, attempt was made by the Cāḷukyas to divide the attention of the Cōḷas between two fronts. This is noteworthy as evidence of the interest of the Western Cāḷukyas in Vēṅgī apart from any complications arising with regard to the succession after the death of Rājarājanarēndra.¹²² We have already had some evidence, though slight, of the eagerness of the Western Cāḷukyas to court the friendship of their Eastern cousins. In fact the possession of Vēṅgī made the Cōḷas formidable to the Western Cāḷukyas; the Cōḷas well understood the importance of Vēṅgī to them and took care to marry their princesses to the rulers of Vēṅgī for generations together and otherwise to keep on friendly terms with them. For the same reason, the Western Cāḷukyas, who looked upon Vēṅgī as a lost dominion, sought to build up their power there.¹²³

c19.49

Kūḍal-Śangamam must be located at the junction of the Tungabhadrā and Kṛṣṇā rivers.¹²⁴ The first battle at this place, the one with which we are now concerned, took place after the Cāḷukyas were driven across the Gaṅgapāḍi up to the banks of the Tungabhadrā, and after the failure of an expedition sent into Vēṅgī by the Cāḷukyas. On a later occasion, when the Cāḷukya failed to meet Vīrarājēndra at the same place as previously arranged, the Cōḷa planted a pillar of victory on the banks of the Tungabhadrā before he retired.¹²⁵ The Śangamam meant by the inscriptions must, therefore, be some confluence of rivers on the course of the Tungabhadrā. The choice lies between Kūḍali at the junction of the Tungā and Bhadrā in Mysore, or that of the Tungabhadrā and the Kṛṣṇā. While the name Kūḍali points to the former as the site of Kūḍal-Śangamam, the Vēṅgī interlude seems to make the latter more probable; a satisfactory identification of Kāndai or Karandai, where the Cōḷa awaited the Cāḷukya for about a month on the second occasion, may decide the choice more definitely.¹²⁶

c19.50

The latest regnal year in Rājēndra's records is the twelfth,¹²⁷ corresponding to A.D. 1063. He was succeeded by Vīrarājēndra already heir-apparent for sometime after the death of Rājamahēndra. Gaṅgāpuri continued to be the Cōḷa capital under Rājēndra II and is mentioned as such in an inscription from Kanyākumārī,¹²⁸ while another from Kuttālam makes mention of a big bazaar within the fort of this capital city.¹²⁹ Of the queens of Rājēndra, only one is mentioned by name in his records, a Kiḷānaḍigaḷ. His daughter Madhurāntakī was the wife of the Eastern Cāḷukya prince Rājēndra II, afterwards Kulōttunga I.¹³⁰ Among the feudatories of Rājēndradēva II, prominent mention is made in his records of the Milāḍa chieftain Narasimhavarman who is said to have ruled Milāḍu 2000 after his abhiṣēka and coronation under this title.¹³¹ Others were Sēnāpati Araiyan Kaḍakkan-goṇḍa-śōḻan,¹³² and Sēnāpati Jayamuri-nāḍāḻvān who is mentioned in an inscription from Ceylon,¹³³ and who may be identical with Araiyan Rājarājan alias Vīrarājēndra Jayamurināḍāḻvān of another inscription from Karuvūr.¹³⁴

c19.51

The *Vikramaśōḻan-ulā*¹³⁵ records that Rājamahēndra made for Ranganātha, the god of Śrīrangam, a serpent-couch set with many precious stones; and the *Kōyiloḻugu*, a late work on the antiquities and traditions of the Śrīrangam temple, though it knows nothing of the serpent-couch, mentions¹³⁶ many structural alterations in the temple as the work of Rājamahēndra, commemorated in the name Rājamahēndran-tiruvīdi. An inscription¹³⁷ of the twelfth year of Kulōttunga I from the Salem district states that in Rājamahēndra's reign there was a land revenue assessment in Kollimalai-nāḍu. The name of Rājamahēndra's queen, Lōkamahādēvi, seems to be preserved in a fragmentary inscription from Cidambaram.¹³⁸

c19.52

For a study of the reign of Rājakēsari Vīrarājēndra I, (accession A.D. 1062-3), we possess a considerabe number of inscriptions with *praśastis* in two main forms and in various redactions, which fit into one another with remarkable correctness.¹³⁹ The longer *praśasti* beginning *Tiruvaḻar-tiraḷ-puyattu* gives in its earlier form a list of the king's relations on whom he conferred various official positions,¹⁴⁰ but omits this list in its later editions.¹⁴¹ The *praśasti* grows in length as the reign advances, and new events are incorporated in it. The shorter introduction beginning *Vīramē-tuṇaiyāgavum* passes through many changes and attains in the seventh year an altogether new cast, and records facts not otherwise known. These changes will be noticed subsequently when they are of any historical importance. The *Kalingattupparaṇi* and the *Vikramaśōḻan-ulā* record no events of the reign of Vīrarājēndra other than the battle of Kūḍal-Śangamam. The *Takkayāgapparaṇi*,¹⁴² on the other hand, mentions his friendship with Vikramāditya VI.

First 54 of 198 passages. Read on

Linked texts (22)