The Colas c20.16

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.