The Colas c20.24

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.