Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Colas c20: Chapter XII. The Accession of Kulōttunga I (A.D. 1070)

The Cōḷas c20

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XII. The Accession of Kulōttunga I (A.D. 1070)

c20.2

Vīrarājēndra died early in A.D. 1070, the eighth year of his reign. He was succeeded on the throne by Parakēsari Adhirājēndra who had a very short reign of some weeks' duration and was followed by Rājakēsari Kulōttunga Cōḷa I on 9 June A.D. 1070.¹ As we find inscriptions of Adhirājēndra dated in his third year, and as the exact date of Kulōttunga's accession is quite clearly attested by his dated stone inscriptions from the Telugu country, it is evident that Adhirājēndra must have been chosen heir-apparent by Vīrarājēndra some time in 1067-8. Adhirājēndra's relation to Vīrarājēndra may be inferred from the explicit statement in the *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita* that on the death of his father-in-law, Vikramāditya started for Kāñcī and Gaṅgākuṇḍapura in order to place his wife's brother on the Cōḷa throne.² Why his reign was so short and how the Eastern Cāḷukya prince Rājēndra II came to occupy the Cōḷa throne in 1070 are questions that do not admit of decisive answers. The evidence bearing on them proceeds from several quarters. These various sources differ so much from one another, and suggest so many explanations of the occurrences that the conviction is borne in upon us that almost every one of our authorities had strong motives to put forward a separate version of the course of events.

c20.3

As a result of several inter-marriages, for some time the members of the Eastern Cāḷukya dynasty had become plainly Cōḷas at heart, far more than Cāḷukyas.³ The following genealogical table illustrates the interrelation between the two dynasties:

c20.5

The Eastern Cāḷukya copper-plates of the period fall into two sets, one of them mentioning the transactions of Vijayāditya VII and his son Śaktivarman II, omitted by others,—a feature not unknown in other passages of E. Cāḷukya history as we know. The facts as set forth in the first set of plates are the following. After twelve years had elapsed from the accession of Rājarāja-narēndra, his step-brother Vijayāditya ousted him from the throne and crowned himself king in Śaka 952, A.D. 1030;⁴ the grant which mentions this fact is dated in the second year of the reign of Vijayāditya.⁵ Then the Telugu Academy plates of Śaktivarman II, which do not mention any regnal year, state that Śaktivarman was crowned as king in the year Śaka 983, on a day corresponding to 18 October A.D. 1061, after Rājarāja had enjoyed a reign of forty-one years; they omit the coronation of Vijayāditya in A.D. 1030.⁶ Lastly, the Ryāli plates (two sets) of Vijayāditya VII omit all reference to the occurrences of A.D. 1030-2, give forty-one years to Rājarāja, state that Vijayāditya took by force the kingdom of his step-brother without his knowledge (at his death),⁷ that he handed it over to his son Śaktivarman out of the love he bore him, and that, when Śaktivarman died at the end of one year by a bad stroke of fate, Vijayāditya was only persuaded with difficulty, like Arjuna at the death of Abhimanyu, to resume the duties of state. These grants are dated in the twelfth year of Vijayāditya's rule. There is nothing in the palaeography or the dating of these records that raises any doubt as to their genuineness.

c20.6

Alike in their chronology and in their narration of events, these plates differ from those of Kulōttunga which will be noticed presently. These imply that Rājarāja-narēndra came to the E. Cāḷukya throne in 1018 after Vimalāditya had occupied it for seven years from A.D. 1011, thus completely vindicating the date of Vimalāditya's accession calculated by Kielhorn, 10 May 1011.⁸ But the facts that the Raṇastapūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya is dated in his eighth regnal year, and that Rājarāja-narēndra's coronation is stated elsewhere to have occurred in A.D. 1022 should not be lost sight of. Though the grants of Vijayāditya VII and Śaktivarman II thus agree with those of the time of Kulōttunga I in ascribing a rule of forty-one years to Rājarāja-narēndra, they seem to reckon the years from a different starting point, A.D. 1018, which is four years earlier than the date usually given, in the later grants, for Rājarāja's coronation, A.D. 1022. The language of the Ryāli plates and the date of Śaktivarman II's coronation⁹ even raise a doubt if Vijayāditya waited till the natural end of Rājarāja's life or deposed him earlier. In any event, seeing that Vīrarājēndra's inscriptions before his seventh year (A.D. 1068-9) do not mention his having had anything to do with Vijayāditya, there is no room for assuming, as has been sometimes done, that he interfered in any dispute relating to the succession, on Rājarāja's death, between Kulōttunga I and Vijayāditya VII or that he helped to keep out the former.¹⁰

c20.7

The hostility of Vijayāditya VII to Rājarāja, and possibly to his son Rājēndra-Kulōttunga, that becomes apparent from these plates has led to the identification of Vijayāditya VII with Viṣṇuvardhana-Vijayāditya (of some Western Cāḷukya inscriptions) who bears Eastern Cāḷukya titles like Sarvalōkāśraya and Vēṅgīmaṇḍalēśvara. Fleet who first proposed this identification, basing himself mainly on the similarity of names and titles,¹¹ subsequently gave it up and made the Western Cāḷukya prince a fourth son of Sōmēśvara I, not mentioned by Bilhaṇa, apparently because he played a very insignificant part.¹² In recent years, Fleet's original identification has again found support from scholars under the influence of the newly discovered copper-plates of Vijayāditya VII and his son Śaktivarman II, and attempts have been made to prove that after the failure of his first usurpation (A.D. 1030-32), Vijayāditya left the Vēṅgī country and sought service under and support from Sōmēśvara I.¹³ It is true that a marriage relation between the two branches of Cāḷukyas such as was postulated by Fleet is impossible, and Vijayāditya-Viṣṇuvardhana, if he was a son of Sōmēśvara, could not have had an Eastern Cāḷukya princess for his mother.¹⁴ Again the omission of this name by Bilhaṇa, and the phrase *tatpādapadmārādhaka* in the inscriptions, describing the relation of Viṣṇuvardhana-Vijayāditya to Sōmēśvara I, raise a doubt as to whether he was the son of Sōmēśvara though he is elsewhere called *maga* and *nandana*.¹⁵

c20.8

To return to the evidence from the Eastern Cāḷukya copper-plates. Three grants of the sons of Kulōttunga, known as the Ṭēki, Cellūr and Pithāpuram grants, dated respectively in the seventeenth, twenty-first and twenty-third years of his reign, narrate in almost identical terms the course of events in Vēṅgī as it was described by Kulōttunga himself to his son Rājarājamummaḍicōḍa, while sending him to Vēṅgī as viceroy of the northern province of the Cōḷa empire.¹⁶ From these plates we learn that, at the death of Rājarāja after a rule of forty-one years Rājēndra was first crowned as lord of Vēṅgī and attained great celebrity. He was then crowned in the Cōḍa-rājya, not less exalted in status than the position of Dēvēndra. He married Madhurāntakī, the very Lakṣmī risen from the ocean, namely Rājēndra-dēva, the *tilaka* of the Solar race. He had many children by her, and to one of them, Rājarāja, he said: 'Child, the great kingdom of Vēṅgī was, in days gone by, entrusted by me to my paternal uncle, king Vijayāditya, as I was desirous of undertaking a conquering tour (or according to the Cellūr plates, "as I was desirous of securing the Cōḷa kingdom"). He too, who was like a god and resembled a lion in his strength, went to heaven after ruling the kingdom for fifteen years.' And the Ṭēki plates make it clear that Vijayāditya's death occurred some time in A.D. 1077;¹⁷ this would mean that Kulōttunga appointed him as his deputy in A.D. 1062 or thereabout.

c20.9

¹⁶ Ṭēki: *EI.*, vi, p. 334; Cellūr: *IA.*, xix, p. 423; Pithāpuram: *EI.*, v, p. 70.

c20.10

¹⁷ *EI.*, vi, p. 336.
1. *EI.* vii p. 7 n. 5. June 13 is now suggested, *ARE.* 1947-8 p. 3 and No. 108 from Śrīrangam of the year's collection.
2. vi. vv. 6-25.
3. *IA.* xx p. 277.
4. Pamulavāka plates of Vijayāditya VII. ll. 62-3; *JAHRS.* ii. 287.
5. (*ibid*) l. 81.
6. *JAHRS.* v. pp. 33, ff.
7. parokṣam Rājarājasya bhrātur-dvaimāturasya yaḥ | paryagrahīn-mahā-rājya-śriyam vīra-śriyā yutaḥ || My thanks are due to Mr T. N. Ramachandran (of the Madras Museum) for assisting me in consulting the unpublished Ryāli plates in his custody. See also *ARE.* 1925. II. 5; *JAHRS.* v: p. 44, v: 16:
8. *EI.* vi, pp. 349-50.
9. This date is given as Ś. 986 in *ARE.* 1914 II 10 and 983 in App. A. (*ibid.*). The text is: *guṇa-vasu-nidhi*. The astronomical details fit 983 better.
10. *ARE.* 1901, paragraph 12; *SII.* iii p. 128. *Eastern Cāḷukyas*, pp. 245 ff, and 295-302.
11. *IA.* xx 277-8.
12. *BG.* I, ii 454 and n. 5.
13. *JAHRS.* i p. 215; v. 206-8; *ARE.* 1925 II 3, *Eastern Cāḷukyas*, pp. 250-5.
14. *ARE.* 1925 II 3.
15. Fleet. *BG.* *ibid*.
16. *EI.* vi 35. *SII.* i. 39, *IA.* xix. p. 427; *EI.* v. 10.
17. Rājarāja Cōḍa-gaṅga was crowned in Vēṅgī in Śaka 1006 (v. 34); before him Vīra Cōḍa was viceroy for six years and Mummaḍi-cōḍa for one year (vv. 19 and 17), so that the beginning of Mummaḍi's viceroyalty fell in Śaka 999 or A.D. 1077.
18. *IA.* xviii pp. 166-9; Korni plates, *JAHRS.* i, pp. 106. ff.
19. *IA.* xviii. pp. 163-4.
20. *IA.* xx. p. 276.
21. 271 of 1896; *EI.* iv. 45. E. Ganga Rājarāja came to power on May 20, A.D. 1070 (*ARE.* 1919, App. A. No 4): 248 of 1896, dated Śaka 990 records a gift by a queen of his predecessor Vajrahasta.
22. *SII.* iii. p. 127.
23. *IA.* xx. 277, 282.
24. *ARE.* 1899 paragraph 51.
25. *SII.* iii 64-7, as corrected by Hira Lal, *EI.* ix p. 179 n. 1 and 2. Also 125 of 1900 with the *pū mēl arivai* introduction recording the same transactions in other words.
26. The phrase *arukkan udayattu āśaiyil irukkum kamalam anaiya nilamagaḷ* has been often misunderstood. It is mere poetry, and contains no geography. Hultzsch's equation of this phrase with Vēṅgī (*SII.* iii p. 132) and Dr. S. K. Aiyangar's suggestion that there is a

c20.11

In order to reconcile these statements of Kulōttunga on his relations with Vijayāditya VII with what we know of them from other sources, we must recall the time and circumstance of the utterance attributed to Kulōttunga. By 1077 Kulōttunga was firmly seated on the Cōḷa throne; and securely established at the head of a prosperous and extensive empire, he was addressing his own son, after the death of his uncle and on the eve of sending him out as viceroy to the northern kingdom. Paternal solicitude as well as good taste and policy required that, rather than expatiate on ancient family feuds that deserved to be forgotten, he should give the best possible account of the past history of the viceroyalty that the young prince was about to take upon himself.

c20.12

That Vijayāditya's relations with Kulōttunga and his father, however, had been nothing so pleasant as Kulōttunga afterwards represented them to his son, becomes clear not only from his Pāmulavāka, and Ryāli plates, and the Telugu Academy plates of Śaktivarman II discussed above, but from other evidence as well. We learn from Eastern Ganga inscriptions that even after Kulōttunga became Cōḷa emperor, the hostile relations between Vijayāditya and his nephew continued more or less unabated. The Vizagapatam plates of Anantavarman Cōḍaganga¹⁸ state that his father Rājarāja having, in the first instance, become the lord of the goddess of victory in a 'Tamil battle', then married Rājasundarī, the daughter of the Cōḷa king. The same lady is described elsewhere in unmistakable terms as the daughter of Rājēndra Cōḷa (Vīrarājēndra) and the chief queen of Rājarāja.¹⁹

c20.13

The Ganga king is also said to have offered help to Vijayāditya at the end of his life. The grant that mentions the 'Tamil battle' also states that 'when Vijayāditya, beginning to grow old, left the country of Vēngī, as if he were the sun leaving the sky, and was about to sink in the great ocean of the Cōḍas,' Rājarāja of Kalinganagara 'caused him to enjoy prosperity for a time in the Western region,' that is, Vēngī to the west of Kalinganagara.²⁰ The approximate date for these occurrences is furnished by the Dīrghasi inscription of Vanapati dated Śaka 997, A.D. 1075, which makes a pointed reference to Vanapati's successes gained on behalf of his Ganga overlord against the Cōḷa forces.²¹ A war between Kulōttunga and the E. Ganga Rājarāja followed by a mediation by Rājarāja Ganga between Vijayāditya VII and his nephew Kulōttunga on a subsequent occasion, and the demise of Vijayāditya some time after the successful intercession of Rājarāja are thus clearly attested by the Ganga records of the time.

c20.14

We are now in a position to explain the relations among the monarchs interested in Vēngī and the probable reason for Vīrarājēndra bestowing Vēngī on Vijayāditya VII whom he had fought for many years both in Vēngī and in Karnāṭaka. The death of Rājarāja Narendra (1061) starts the trouble which ends soon after the death of Sōmeśvara I (1068) with a veritable diplomatic revolution. When Vijayāditya VII seized the throne of Vēṅgī after Rājarāja's death and bestowed it on his son Śaktivarman II with the aid of Sōmeśvara I, the Cōḷa Vīrarājēndra wanted to re-establish the Cōḷa influence in Vēṅgī which had disappeared in recent years owing to the neglect of his brothers. But though he killed Śaktivarman II in battle, that did not change the political alignment. Vijayāditya, though bereaved, allowed himself to be persuaded to rule in Vēṅgī and was actively supported by Sōmeśvara I and his sons, particularly Vikramāditya. This political set up continued till the death of Sōmeśvara I, after which event the schemes of the ambitious Vikramāditya dominate the political field. Though a younger son of Sōmeśvara I, Vikramāditya was conscious of his superior ability and set about plotting against his elder brother Sōmeśvara II who succeeded his father. He made up his mind to secure the support of the Cōḷa ruler by paying a price; knowing full well how keen Vīrarājēndra was on Vēṅgī, he resolved to satisfy him here provided he got the Cōḷa's aid against his brother and thereby secured a part, if not the whole, of the Cāḷukya kingdom for himself. This brought to an end this phase of the Cōḷa-Cāḷukya war. Vijayāditya consented to receive and hold the Vēṅgī kingdom as a fief of the Cōḷa empire: Vikramāditya got half the Cāḷukya kingdom forced from his brother by Vīrarājēndra who also gave him one of his daughters in marriage and another (Rājasundari) to the Kalinga ruler Rājarāja, the other ally on Vikramāditya's side. And if Vīrarājēndra had lived for some years after this settlement instead of dying very soon after it, the course of history may have been very different from what it turned out to be.

c20.15

If Rājēndra-Kulōttunga was first crowned as lord of Vēṅgī, as the later E. Cāḷukya plates assert (in contradiction to those of Vijayāditya), it is remarkable that these plates fail to give us the exact date of this coronation as they do of most other coronations. The Telugu inscriptions of Kulōttunga containing both regnal years and Śaka dates support the date A.D. 1070 for the commencement of his rule, and this was the date of his accession to the Cōḷa throne.²²

c20.16

The crux of the Kulōttunga problem is,' in fact, the question: what did he do with himself in the interval between his father's death and a.d. 1070? Fleet added up the two statements in the Ṭēki and Cellūr grants that Kulōttunga appointed his uncle as deputy in Vēṅgī because he wanted to have (i) a conquering tour and (ii) the Cōḷarājya, and stated that 'Kulōttunga acquired the Cōḷa crown by hostile invasion and conquest,' and placed this event in a.d. 1063, in spite of the indication of a much later date for it furnished by the *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita*.²³ He also pointed out that Kulōttunga's conquest and annexation of the Cōḷa empire were not entirely the result of a failure of the Cōḷa succession, and that it must have been powerfully aided by a rebellion in the Cōḷa country and a state of anarchy of which we get some idea from the *Kaliṅgattuprani*. Later writers, while they have recognised the mistake in Fleet's date for these occurrences, have not been so ready to give up his suggestions of hostile invasion, and in fact have added to it the charge of political murder against Kulōttunga.²⁴ Reserving the literary sources for more detailed consideration at a large stage, it may be observed here that the course adopted by Fleet in putting together two alternative statements made in peculiar circumstances about past events and evolving the theory of hostile invasion seems to be of doubtful validity, and that even the *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita* does not contain the remotest suggestion that Kulōttunga put his rivals out of the way by secret murder, or even by open fighting. And now we must remember what Fleet was not aware of, viz., that the supposed appointment of Vijayāditya by Kulōttunga to deputise for him at Vēṅgī and his occupation of the Cōḷa throne are separated by the whole interval of the reign of Vīrarājēndra.

c20.17

At the time of his father's death and the forcible seizure of the Vēṅgī throne by Vijayāditya mentioned in the Ryālī plates, Kulōttunga, or Rājēndra as he was then known, must have been a youth in his teens. For considering that he lived on to have a long rule of fifty years from a.d. 1070, it is hardly likely that about a.d. 1062 he was more than twenty years of age. His earliest Tamil inscriptions record certain facts which seem to indicate how Rājēndra engaged himself when he was thus kept out of his inheritance. The records of his second year²⁵ state that, with the aid only of the strength of his arms and his sword, he overcame the treachery of his enemies, captured many herds of elephants, levied tribute from the Nāgavamśī king, Dhārāvarṣa of Cakrakūṭa, and gently raised the Earth resembling the lotus expecting the rise of the sun for blooming, as Viṣṇu raised the Earth from the ocean in his boar incarnation, and seated her, to her great pleasure, under the shade of his parasol.²⁶ His records soon came to describe these achievements as belonging to the period of his *iḷangōp-paruvam*, when he was still heir-apparent.²⁷ If this view is correct, we must conclude that Rājēndra spent the best part of the period a.d. 1063-70 in the region of the modern Bastar state, and possibly even carved out for himself a small dominion beyond it in the Pūrvadēśa, even if he did not gain complete control over the Cakrakūṭa state and annex parts of the Pūrvadēśa to it, as his inscriptions imply. Possibly this northern extension of the influence of Vēngī, so closely allied to the Cōḷas, was the cause of Vikramāditya's expedition against Vēngī and Cakrākūṭa, counteracted by the campaign of Vīrarājēndra culminating in the battle of Bezwāda. It will be remembered that in the course of this campaign, Vīrarājēndra is said also to have marched up to Śakkarakkōṭṭam. After the death of Vīrarājēndra, Kulōttunga marched into the Cōḷa country in good time to get himself accepted as king; but more of this later. And as he did some fighting during these years and subsequently came to look upon the whole period as a sort of probation for the Cōḷa throne, he might have felt justified in saying that he left Vēngī to his uncle Vijayāditya at the death of his father for a double reason.²⁸

c20.18.1

We may now turn to the literary evidence on the subject of Kulōttunga's accession. On one matter the evidence of two works is in complete accord with that of the inscriptions. Both the *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita* and the *Vikramaśoḻan-ulā*²⁹ are explicit in stating that Vīrarājēndra was succeeded by another king before Kulōttunga came to the throne; the *ulā* by its very brief reference giving no particulars whatever of his reign, and the *Carita* by directly stating that he lost his life in a rebellion that occurred within a few days of his installation³⁰, imply that he had a very short reign; this king was no doubt Parakēsari Adhirājēndra of the inscriptions. And Kulōttuṅga himself recognised the legitimacy of Adhirājēndra's position when he styled himself Rājakēsari. In some of his records, however, is found a double *praśasti* which, by combining the two forms *vīramē tuṇai-yāgavum* and *pugaḷmādu viḷaṅga*, seems to set up a claim that Kulōttuṅga should be considered the direct successor of Vīrarājēndra.³¹ And the *Kaliṅgattupraraṇi* of Jayaṅgoṇḍār, makes it a point to ignore the reign of Adhirājēndra.³² This poem is often cited in support of the notions that at his birth Kulōttuṅga was adopted by Rājēndra Cōḷadēva I into the Cōḷa family and that he was brought up in his maternal grandfather's court.³³ But there is nothing in the actual words employed by the poet to suggest either a formal ceremony of adoption or to enable us to know where the prince spent his early years.

c20.18.2

In fact the date of this prince's birth must be placed at the end of Rājēndra I's reign, some time after A.D. 1040. By that time Rājādhirāja I had long been associated with his father as *yuvarāja*, and there were several brothers of his perhaps occupying responsible posts in the administration of the empire. There was no need for any adoption; and considering his marriage with Madhurāntaki, it is impossible to postulate it. In fact all that Jayaṅgoṇḍār says is that on the birth of the child, the queen of Gaṅgaikoṇḍaśōḷa raised him in her hands and expressed her admiration of the marks on his limbs by observing that he was fit to be a son of the solar line born for its protection; in the very next verse the poet takes good care to add that the kings of both the lunar and the solar dynasties, that is Rājarājanarēndra and Rājēndra Gaṅgaikoṇḍa, experienced joy on the occasion of the birth of the prince.³⁴ After a convential account of the early years of the prince, the poet states than Abhaya³⁵ (Vīrarājēndra) made him crown prince, and then proceeds to describe his *digvijaya* of which particulars are furnished only with reference to the northern direction. He is said to have made his mark in Vayirākaram and Śakkarakkōṭṭam. He was still in the north engaged in these campaigns when the Cōḷa king died in the south, and there ensued anarchy and confusion until Abhaya Kulōttuṅga returned and restored order. This account of Jayaṅgoṇḍār is remarkable in some ways.

c20.18.3

It studiously refrains from mentioning Adhirājēndra and asserts that Vīrarājēndra made Abhaya crown prince for the rule of the Earth, meaning no doubt, the Cōḷa kingdom; and it recounts details of campaigns in Wairagarh and Cakrakuṭa exactly like the early inscriptions of Kulōttunga to which attention has been drawn above. Though the poet aims, as Fleet has remarked, at treating Abhaya on the whole as a Cōḷa prince rather than as Cāḷukya, he has still not altogether suppressed the Cāḷukya connections, and in his account of the youthful achievements of Abhaya he follows the early records of the reign rather closely. Above all, his account leaves no room for doubt as to the whereabouts of Abhaya at the time when his chance arrived to seize the Cōḷa throne. It is also of some interest to note that in the account of Abhaya's *digvijaya*, and in the attempt made, in the inscriptions, to combine the *praśasti* of Vīrarājēndra with that of Kulōttunga, and thus cast a doubt on the legitimacy of Adhirājēndra's rule, the poem and the inscriptions are in perfect agreement.

c20.19

The *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita* of Bilhaṇa gives the story from yet another point of view, which is as hostile to Kulōttunga as the *Kalingattup-paraṇi* is favourable to him.³⁶ Soon after Vikramāditya's marriage, his father-in-law the Cōḷa king, died and the kingdom fell into a state of anarchy. When he heard of these things, he set out for Kāñcī with the definite object of helping the late king's son to the throne. At Kāñcī, Vikramāditya spent some days in bringing the wicked (*duṣṭavarga*) to their knees, and then marched to Gaṅgākuṇḍa where he destroyed the forces of the enemy and finally secured the throne for the Cōḷa prince. After spending about a month in that city, Vikramāditya, apparently satisfied that peace had been restored, retired to the Tungabhadrā. Within a few days after his return, the news reached him that his brother-in-law had lost his life in a fresh rebellion and that Rājiga, the lord of Vēṅgī, had captured the throne vacated by the Cōḷa prince. 'Vikramāditya VI marched at once against Rājiga. The latter induced Sōmēśvara II to combine with him; and a battle was fought. But the victory rested with Vikramāditya VI; Rājiga fled and Sōmēśvara II was taken prisoner. This lost Sōmēśvara the throne; and shortly afterwards, according to the poem, Vikramāditya VI allowed himself to be proclaimed ruler of the Dekkan.'³⁷

c20.20

Certain questions naturally arise from this account: who was responsible for the troubles that followed Vīrarājēndra's death and rendered it necessary for Vikramāditya to come over to Kañcī and Gaṅgākuṇḍa to secure the succession for his brother-in-law? Who were the wicked people of Kañcī and the hostile forces of Gaṅgākuṇḍa whom Vikramāditya had to suppress before Adhirājēndra could feel secure on the throne and Vikramāditya himself retire to the Tungabhadrā? And what was the nature of the rebellion in which Adhirājēndra lost his life within a few days after Vikramāditya's retirement? There is no direct statement in the *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita* of Kulōttuṅga's complicity in these conspiracies and rebellions; but the facts that they paved the way for Kulōttuṅga's accession to the Cōḷa throne, that Vikramāditya VI marched against him and made an attempt to oust him after he occupied it, and the silence of the *Kalingattupparaṇi* on Adhirājēndra's reign seem to furnish some ground for the inference that Kulōttuṅga's ambition and intrigue brought about these occurrences. But a strict regard to the actual statements of Bilhaṇa may not support any conclusion more precise than that of Fleet,³⁸ 'that Kulōttuṅga Cōḷadēva I was enabled to seize the Cōḷa crown through internal disturbances in the Cōḷa kingdom, which culminated in the death of the last Cōḷa king.'

c20.21

An attempt has been made³⁹ to connect these internal disturbances in the Cōḷa kingdom that led to the extinction of the direct line of the Cōḷas with the story of the persecution suffered by Rāmānuja and his disciples as it is narrated in Vaiṣṇava hagiology. Without minimising the difficulty of reconciling all the data proceeding from a mass of contradictory legends, but confining our attention to the professedly earliest biographies of Rāmānuja like the final chapters of the *Divyasūricarita*⁴⁰ and the *Yatirāja-vaibhavam*,⁴¹ it is just possible to identify the Cōḷa who died as Kṛmikāṇṭha in consequence of the persecution to which he subjected Rāmānuja and his followers with either Adhirājēndra, or possibly with Vīrarājēndra with whom the direct Cōḷa line practically comes to a close. The categorical statement in the *Divyasūricarita* that God Śiva of Tiruvārūr proclaimed the end of the rule of the kings of the Cōḷa family,⁴² and the chaos at the end of Vīrarājēndra's rule which is attested by, but not accounted for, by the *Kalingattupparaṇi* and the *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita*, and which might have been the concomitant of a religious upheaval, lend plausibility to the suggestion thus made. But it must be recognised that the details of the chronology of the life of Rāmānuja furnished by other works are not easy to explain on this assumption, and that it is perhaps impossible to reconcile all the data furnished by legend on any single hypothesis.⁴³

c20.22

Before concluding this discussion of the circumstances of Kulōttunga's accession, it must be pointed out that the provenance of the inscriptions of the early years of Kulōttunga now known does not confirm the views to which Hultzsch gave expression in his masterly introduction to Kulōttunga's inscriptions of these years. It shows, on the contrary, that from a.d. 1070 onwards Kulōttunga was practically master of the entire Cōḷa country, except, of course, for the hostile movement of Vikramāditya VI which remained to be dealt with, and the risings in the south, always ready to break out on every possible occasion and now favoured by the confusion following Vīrarājēndra's death. Inscriptions of Rājēndra's second year⁴⁴ with the characteristic introduction or with a verifiable date are found in Kaṇḍamangalam (South Arcot) and Vaḷuvur (Tanjore); of the third year⁴⁵ at Ālaṅguḍi, Nallūr (Tanjore), Iḍaiyār and Tribhuvani, (South Arcot). And there are records of the second and fourth years already giving him the name Kulōttunga.⁴⁶ It seems necessary therefore to give up the ideas that some years elapsed after Rājiga entered the Cōḷa kingdom and before he actually occupied the territory on the banks of the Kāvēri; and that his formal assumption of Cōḷa sovereignty in the fifth year was marked by the adoption of the name Kulōttunga.⁴⁷ The fact seems to have been that, as is implied by the *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita*, Rājiga came to the south soon after Adhirājēndra's demise⁴⁸ and appropriated to himself the whole kingdom of the Cōḷas, in so far as it was possible to do this by a single formal act. In fact, he became the Cōḷa king. It remained of course for him to hold the new position against Vikramāditya's attack and to suppress other disorders. And if it is true, as seems likely, that some other records bearing early regnal years like the second and third of Kulōttunga⁴⁹ are also really his, then it becomes quite certain that the title Kulōttunga was also assumed by him from the very commencement.

c20.23

To sum up the results of the discussion. Despite the statement in the *Kalingattupparaṇi* that Vīrarājēndra made Kulōttunga his crown prince, the evidence of Adhirājēndra's inscriptions, the *Vikramāṅkadēva Carita* and the *Vikramaśōḻanulā* makes it clear that this could not have happened, and that, consequently, we have to assume that the court-poet of Kulōttunga introduced this story to give validity to Kulōttunga's title to the Cōḷa throne. There is no direct statement even by Jayangoṇḍār that Kulōttunga was either adopted into the Cōḷa family or that he was brought up in the Cōḷa court. The copper-plate grants of the Eastern Cāḷukyas, those of Vijayāditya VII, of Śaktivarman II and of the sons of Kulōttunga himself, together with the early Tamil records of Kulōttunga's reign, lead us to reconstruct the period of Kulōttunga's youth and his career until he came to the Cōḷa throne somewhat as follows. At the time of his father's death, his uncle Vijayāditya made himself master of the Vēṅgī kingdom and kept the prince Rājēndra, as he was then called, out of his inheritance. Alone and unaided, he sought a life of adventure across the Vēṅgī frontier in the land of Cakrakūṭa (Bastar). Possibly he carved a small principality for himself and after making his peace with his uncle Vijayāditya, especially as, after the death of Śaktivarman II, this must have been easy, he bided his time hoping that in some manner he might gain the Cōḷa throne for himself. The confusion that followed the death of Vīrarājēndra in the internal affairs of the Cōḷa kingdom helped him to achieve his object in spite of the attempts of Cāḷukya Vikramāditya VI to prevent the union of the Vēṅgī and Cōḷa kingdoms in the same hands. The evidence is not clear on the question of Kulōttunga's complicity in the rebellions that at first obstructed the accession and then shortened the rule of Adhirājēndra. There is just a possibility that these disturbances were religious in origin and connected with the Cōḷa persecution of Vaiṣṇavism in the days of Rāmānuja, a fact well attested in legends, though the details of the story are very obscure. In any event, Kulōttunga began to rule in the Cōḷa kingdom from about 9 June A.D. 1070.⁵⁰ In his later inscriptions Kulōttunga claims to have obtained the Cōḷa crown by right and thereby become an acceptable companion to the land of the Kāvēri in her loneliness.⁵¹ reference to Kaḍāram here (*Ancient India*, pp. 130-1), are alike wrong. The correct explanation was first put forward by A. V. Venkatarama Aiyar in his Śankara-Pārvati lecture (1943) in the University of Madras—see *Proceedings, Indian History Congress, Aligarh, 1943*, pp. 161-2.

c20.24

28. It is obviously impossible to discuss fully all the theories that have been suggested about Kulōttunga's position in 1063-70. I am fully alive to the responsibility of adding one more to these, not to my knowledge suggested before by others. My only warrant is that this seems to be the normal interpretation of the language of the inscriptions of Kulōttunga himself. The other views centre round the hypothesis that Rājēndra was *yuvarāja* to his father Rājarāja-narēndra when he fought the campaign against Dhārāvarṣa or that he was *yuvarāja* to Vīrarājēndra. The latter seems impossible, in view of Adhirājēndra's position and inscriptions. The former hypothesis is quite feasible, provided the date is not placed too early. (*JAHRS*. i. pp. 217-8). Another view makes Kulōttunga a dupe of circumstances who, having, after a fight in which Śaktivarman II was killed like Abhimanyu (an inference not supported by the language of the Ryāli plates), made his peace with his bereaved uncle, found himself baulked in his design upon the Cōḷa throne by the prompt usurpation of Vīrarājēndra (*JAHRS*. v. pp. 208-11). This writer has apparently overlooked the probability that Vīrarājēndra might have been recognised as heir to Rājēndradēva on the death of Rājamahēndra. He is also clearly wrong in mixing up Yaśaḥ-karṇadēva's inroad into Trikaḷinga with these transactions, for he did not come to power till A.D. 1073 (*EI*. xii p. 207). Hultzsch's view that before A.D. 1072 Rājēndra-Kulōttunga took Vēṅgī from his uncle Vijayāditya VII who appears to have received it from the Cōḷa king Vīrarājēndra (*SII*. iii. p. 132) goes against the express statement in the Ṭēki and other grants that Vijayāditya ruled Vēṅgī continuously for fifteen years, and is now contradicted by the Ryāli plates of the twelfth year of Vijayāditya c. A.D. 1074; but the E. Gaṅga records (p. 289 *ante*) must be taken into account here. See also *ARE*. 1914, II 10 where *SII*. iii. p. 128 is followed.

c20.25

29. ll. 44-5—*Aṅgavanpin kāvalpurindavani kāttōnum*.

c20.26

30. vi. 26.

c20.27

31. 156 of 1923 (Yr. 2); 197 of 1919 (Yr. 5), the former having only *vīramē tuṇai*; 197 and 199 of 1929 and 434 of 1912 (Yrs. 37, 38 and 43). *ARE*. 1913, II. 33.

c20.28

32. Verse viii. 29 asserts that directly after the victory of Kūḍal-Śaṅgamam the earth, to her great good fortune, passed into the hands of Abhaya, the hero of the poem. The 'mannar-mannan' or 'mannar-vīran' of x. 25 cannot be Adhirājēndra as Hultzsch thinks (*SII*. iii p. 129), but Vīrarājēndra.

c20.29

³³ Hultzsch *SII*. iii. pp. 127, 196. S. K. Aiyangar—*op. cit.* pp: 125, 129.

c20.30

³⁴ x, vv. 5-7.

c20.31

³⁵ 'Abhaya' in this verse x. 18 does refer to Vīrarājēndra cf. viii 29; and from this account of Vīrarājēndra's recognition of Kulōttūṅga, the conclusion has been drawn that Adhirājēndra was a bastard with no title to the throne.
36. vi. 7-26.
37. Fleet IA. xx. p. 281.
38. *IA.* xx. p. 282:
39. *IA.* xli pp. 217 ff.
40. Ed. Ālkoṇḍavilli Gōvindācārya-Mysore 1885, text in Telugu characters. Nāgarī text in the *Sahṛdayā* (New series).
41. *IA.* xxxviii pp. 129 ff. See, however, *IA.* xl p. 152, for a critique.
42. xviii 84:
43. To refrain from dogmatism in dealing with such shifty material is as necessary as it is difficult. Kṛmikaṇṭha-Cōḷa has generally been identified with Kulōttunga I, on the strength of the name Kulōttunga given to the Cōḷa persecutor of Rāmānuja in late works like the *Kōyilolugu*, A. Govindācāryasvāmin—*Life of Rāmānuja* (Madras 1906) p. 170. S. K. Aiyangar *Ancient India* pp. 150 and 207. Dr. Aiyangar is inclined to date the decline of Cōḷa power from the end of Kulōttunga I's reign. *op. cit.* pp. 152 and 318. It has been pointed out that the traditional date for the foundation of the temple at Mēlukōṭe is against this identification of Kṛmikaṇṭha. (IA. vol. xli. p. 224). It is possible that ‘Kulōttunga’ is used in late works as a generic name for Cōḷa. The name is not found even in the *Guruparamprāprabhāva*, (*Āṟāyirappaḍi*; ed. Madras 1927). Kṛmikaṇṭha-Cōḷa is said to have uprooted and thrown into the sea the image of Gōvindarāja from the front of the Naṭarāja shrine at Cidambaram, and this act of sacrilege is placed by the *Divyasūricarita* at the very beginning of the Cōḷa persecution of Viṣṇuism, (xviii 72). The same fact is recalled by the much later *Prapannāmṛtam* (quoted by Dr. S. K. Aiyangar *op. cit.* p. 320). The poet Oṭṭakkūttan seems to attribute this deed to Kulōttunga II—*Kulōttungaśōḻanulā* ll. 76-8; *Rājarājaśōḻan-ulā* ll. 64-6 which is most explicit, and *Takkayāgapparaṇi* v. 777. But no one, on this account, seems to be prepared to identify the persecutor of Rāmānuja with Kulōttunga II. This king is, however, known to have extended the temple of Naṭarāja by putting up new structures and 'gilding' it, and it may be that the Tamil poet in describing this act of his attributes to him a deed of one of his predecessors. Otherwise the genuineness of even the *Divyasūricarita* would be suspect.
44. 358 of 1917; 425 of 1912.
45. 497 of 1920; 55 of 1911; 279 of 1929; 185 of 1919.
46. 156 of 1923, (2); 101 of 1928, 468 of 1913 (4).
47. *SII.* iii pp. 132, 140.
48. The civil war between Adhirājēndra and the ‘usurper’ postulated in *ARE.* 1904 paragraph 21 is pure myth.
49. 145, 147, 151 of 1906; 142 of 1929; 55 of 1911; 586 of 1907; 267 of 1917; 126 of 1912.
50. *EI.* vii. p. 7 n. 5. See also n. 1 *ante*.
51. *SII.* iii 68. ‘*Podumai*’ does not mean ‘prostitution’ as Hultzsch understands it. The idea is that Lakṣmī, the wealth of the southern country, had become common, ownerless, and the land of the Kāvēri lonely, uncompanioned, when the Cōḷa succession failed; both found a remedy for their situation in the coming of Kulōttunga.

Linked texts (16)