The Colas c21.35

c21.35

Scholars have been puzzled by a statement in the Chinese annals (preserved in the pages of Ma Tuan-lin) that the Cōḷa Kingdom was subject to Śrī Vijaya in A.D. 1068-77. In recording an embassy from Pagan in 1106, Ma Tuan-lin says in effect: “The Emperor at first gave order to receive them and treat them as they treated the envoys of Tchou-lien (Cōḷa); but the President of the Council of Rites presented the following observations: “the Cōḷa is subject to San-fo-ts’i; this is why in the years *hi-ning* (1068-1077), we were content to write to the King of this Kingdom on strong paper with an envelope of plain stuff. The King of Pou-kan (Pagan), on the contrary is sovereign of a great kingdom of the Fan....””⁷⁶ From this interesting passage we gather that the ambassadors of San-fo-ts’i (Śrī Vijaya) had some time in 1068-1077 claimed in the Chinese court that the Cōḷa kingdom was subject to them and that they were entitled to a higher rank than the representatives of the Cōḷa ruler, and that this order of priority was cited as a precedent in 1106 to justify the ranking of Cōḷa envoys below those from Pagan. To appraise these statements at their proper value, one must recall the difficulties that would most naturally be experienced by envoys from the Tamil country in making their position and that of their ruler properly understood in distant China. We may notice that much earlier than 1068, the embassies sent to China by Rājarāja I and Rājēndra I experienced similar difficulties and were ranked much below their proper place.⁷⁷ The gaucherie of the Tamil envoys, the ignorance of Chinese officialdom of the true state of politics in remote countries, and perhaps, the readiness of the ambassadors of Śrī Vijaya to indulge in unjust misrepresentations relating to Cōḻa must have combined to bring about the situation recorded by Ma Tuan-lin. There is not the slightest ground, however, to believe that either in 1068 or in 1106 the Cōḻa Kingdom became the vassal of Śrī Vijaya. All the other evidence on the relations between the two kingdoms is opposed to this assumption.⁷⁸