Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Colas c24: Chapter XVI. Rājarāja III and Rājēndra III, the End 1216-1279

The Cōḷas c24

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XVI. Rājarāja III and Rājēndra III, the End 1216-1279

c24.2

The date of Rājarāja's accession falls between June 27 and July 10, A.D. 1216.¹ This date no doubt marks, not his accession to the throne in his absolute right, but his recognition by his predecessor as heir apparent. It must have been some time after this that Sundara Pāṇḍya's invasion of the Cōḷa country and the intercession of Vīra Narasimha to secure a respite for the Cōḷa power occurred. And Kulōttunga III died soon after. The reign of the third Rājarāja began badly, and these initial misfortunes were but the precursors of much greater calamities; again the Hoysaḷas had to come to the rescue.

c24.3

What was the relation of Rājarāja to Kulōttunga? Was he the son whom the Cōḷa monarch (Kulōttunga III) on his return from exile, presented to the Pāṇḍyan conqueror who sent for him in order to give him back his kingdom? This may have been so, but we lack definite evidence. Rājarāja's inscriptions call Kulōttunga III *periyadēvar* (the elder lord);² so do the inscriptions of Rājarāja's successor Rājēndra III.³ But this is not enough to sustain the inferences that Rājarāja was a son or nephew of Kulōttunga III or that Rājēndra was his brother.⁴ *Periyadēvar* does not seem to signify anything more specific than priority in succession; Rājēndra III describes Rājarāja III also by the same term.⁵ There seems to be no reason why we should not suppose that Rājarāja was the son of Kulōttunga, and Rājēndra of Rājarāja; but this cannot yet be proved.

c24.4

The most common *praśasti* of the reign is a relatively short description of the glories of Cōḷa rule under Rājarāja III; it begins *sīr manni iru nāṅgu tiśai*,⁶ and does not contain a single historical fact, and it is not worth studying the minor variations in the words of the *praśasti*. Two inscriptions containing the *praśasti* call for some remark. One of them comes from Tiruvoṟṟiyūr⁷ and is dated in the third year of a Parakēsari *alias* Tribhuvana Cakravarti Ulaguyya-vanda-perumāḷ. Now the expression Ulaguyya-vanda-perumāḷ, the lord by whose coming the world was saved, is a title rather than a name, and is found in the inscriptions in relation to Kulōttunga III⁸ and Rājarāja III.⁹ The title Parakēsari in this inscription points to Kulōttunga III; but no other inscription of that king is known to contain the *praśasti* now being considered. On the other hand, the *praśasti* itself and the contents of the record which have reference to the punishment of some persons for treason, a recurring feature of the reign of Rājarāja, point to the successor of Kulōttunga III. This record is, therefore, best assigned to the reign of Rājarāja, the Parakēsari title given in it being held to be mistake for Rājakēsari.¹⁰ The same explanation holds also with regard to the second of the inscriptions mentioned above, a record from Tiruverumbūr with *sīr manni* introduction and Parakēsari title.¹¹ Such chance mistakes can hardly justify the assumption, sometimes put forward, that, in this period, the Rājakēsari and Parakēsari titles were applied rather indifferently to one and the same king.

c24.5

Another much longer *praśasti* of a high literary quality, also of little use for purposes of history, begins with the words *sīr mannu malarmagaḷ*.¹² The state of the country, the personal appearance and the character of its ruler, and the subject races paying tribute to him, are all described in this *praśasti*; but the description is so hyperbolic and conventional that we learn from it more of the ways of court-poets than of the subjects they handle. Two queens are mentioned, the senior, a Bāṇa princess who is said to have shared equal authority with the king and to have been consecrated with him,¹³ and the junior having the title Buvana-muḻuduḍaiyāḷ.

c24.6

The reign of Rājarāja was a period of continuous trouble. It coincides with an epoch of great changes in the political map of the South, and Rājarāja was obviously no great warrior or statesman. The Cōḷas were exposed to assaults from within and without. The Pāṇḍyas in the south and the Hoysalas in the west had by now risen to the rank of great powers led by rulers of exceptional merit, and the one chance of survival for the Cōḷas was the rivalry between these two new powers neither of which would let the ancient Cōḷa Kingdom fall a prey to the other. In the north-west the Cāḷukyas of Kalyāṇi had given way before the newly risen power of the Sēuṇas. In the north-east, the Telugu-Cōḍas of Nellore held an important place and their relations with the Hoysalas on the one side and the Kākatīyas on the other formed another remarkable chapter of the history of the time. Nearer home the Kāḍava chieftains of Kūḍalūr and Sēndamaṅgalam were not slow to take advantage of the growing weakness of their suzerain.

c24.7

For two centuries and a half after the invasion of Kṛṣṇa III, in the middle of the tenth century, the Cōḷa empire had grown in strength and prestige, and the set-back it suffered at the close of the reign of Kulōttunga I had no vital consequences and had left the somewhat diminished empire quite as strong and influential as ever. And it took a leading part in settling the succession dispute in the Pāṇḍyan Kingdom. But the disaster that followed not long after, the invasion of Māṟavarman Sundara Pāṇḍya in the closing years of the reign of Kulōttunga III, exposed the hollowness of the Cōḷa power in this period. For the first time in many generations, the Cōḷa capitals were sacked by an enemy and the Cōḷa king reduced to the position of a wandering refugee, a fate that the Cōḷas had often inflicted on their enemies. The Cōḷa king indeed regained his position, but after begging for it from his conqueror and on terms that no longer left him an independent ruler. And even this mercy was due to Hoysala aid. This was the signal for the overgrown vassals of the Cōḷa Kingdom to disregard the authority of their suzerain, and at the earliest opportunity that offered itself, either to transfer their allegiance or to declare their independence. This was the state of affairs when Kulōttunga III died, and the reign of Rājarāja III began.

c24.8

Inscriptions from the Tanjore district mention that there were great disorders in the fifth year of the reign resulting in loss of security and damage to property.¹⁴ These disorders are only vaguely characterised as *duritaṅgaḷ* (troubles) and *kṣōbham* (agitation), and there is no more indication of their exact nature. It is clear from the inscriptions, however, that they led to the temporary desertion of one temple, its images and movable property being carried elsewhere for safety, and the permanent destruction of the records and title-deeds of two villages which had subsequently to improvise fresh records after inquiry. These disturbances might have been purely local; at any rate there is no clear evidence of their being due to war or foreign invasion.¹⁵

c24.9

There were other conflicts going on in what was still nominally Cōḷa territory, conflicts of which we hear only faint echoes in the records of the time. An inscription dated A.D. 1223-4 from the North Arcot district,¹⁶ mentions a fight between Vīranārasingadēva Yādavarāya and the Kāḍavarāya at Uratti, perhaps Oratti of to-day in the Chingleput district. The fight is mentioned incidentally in commemorating the heroism of a soldier, who fought in the army of the Yādavarāya and lost his life in an attack on the Kāḍavarāya himself. Both these chieftains acknowledged the supremacy of the Cōḷa ruler. We have no information concerning the occasion for the conflict and we cannot say if the Kāḍavarāya was Kopperuñjinga himself or, what is perhaps more likely, his father.¹⁷ The Kāḍavarāya also came into conflict with the Hoysaḷa about the same time if not earlier. In an inscription which from its cyclic year may be dated about A.D. 1218,¹⁸ Vīra Narasimha styles himself *Kāñcī-Kāñcana Kāḍavakulāntaka* and *Kāḍavarāyadiśāpaṭṭa*. If the date of the inscription were not uncertain, we may even suppose that the Kāḍava had taken advantage of the invasion of the Cōḷa country by the Pāṇḍya king or entered into league with him, and that, in order to save the Cōḷa kingdom, the Hoysaḷas had to deal with the Kāḍava as well as the Pāṇḍya himself.¹⁹ Whatever that may be, there are other inscriptions which bring Narasimha into definite relation with Kāñcī in this period. One of them, A.D. 1230,²⁰ states that Vīra Narasimha was ruling from Kāñcī, and another inscription, undated, mentions that some of his troops (*bhēruṇḍas*) were stationed at Kāñcī.²¹ These references to local disturbances and wars among feudatories and to the supervening of Hoysaḷa influence in different directions give a measure of the disintegration of the Cōḷa Kingdom and the helplessness of its ruler in the midst of growing difficulties. This impression is strengthened by the unusually large number of trials for treason reported in the inscriptions of the reign.

c24.10

Rājarāja was evidently not only weak but foolish. For, if we may trust the Pāṇḍyan inscriptions of the time, he deliberately broke the terms of the treaty with his Pāṇḍyan overlord and thus contrived to bring about the capital disaster of the reign. 'The Cōḷa' says the *praśasti* of Māṟavarman Sudara Pāṇḍya I,

c24.11

'no longer considered it the proper course to own allegiance to the ruler who had bestowed the crown on him on a former occasion. He began once more to feel that his security lay in his own fertile country, and declined to do the usual honour to the commands (of the Pāṇḍya), refused to pay the usual tribute, and (instead) despatched a large army (*pēraṇi*) preceded by an advance guard (*tūśi*).'

c24.12

The events that followed this attempt to throw off the Pāṇḍyan allegiance are described in the Pāṇḍya *praśasti*, in a unique historical inscription from Tiruvēndipuram,²² and in the historical romance, *Gadyakarṇāmṛta* of Kāḷakaḷabha, composed not many years after the events. The reference to the events of the time by the last author is very brief, but illuminating. Without his assistance, the proper sequence of events must have remained a matter of conjecture, and not the certainty that it now is.

c24.13

To begin with the Pāṇḍyan side of the story.²³ The expeditionary force sent by the Cōḷa was rolled back and a pitched battle fought in which the Cōḷas suffered heavy loss in men, horse and elephants; the enemy country was irrigated with the blood of fallen foes and sowed with *kavaḍi*, the whole body of women in the enemy's harem including the chief queen of the Cōḷa monarch were taken captive, and made to carry the water-jar and other auspicious objects before the Pāṇḍyan ruler on the occasion of his triumphal entry into the Cōḷa capital, Muḍikoṇḍa-śōḻapuram, where a *vijayābhiṣēka* (the anointment of victors) was performed.²⁴ The *Gadyakarṇā-* *mṛta* takes up the story at this point and connects it with the events recorded in the Tiruvēndipuram inscription. It says:²⁵

c24.14

‘Defeated in battle by the Pāṇḍya ruler, King Rājarāja abandoned his capital and together with his retinue (*saparivāram*) sought to reach the side of his ally, the ruler of Kuntala; while on his way, he was overtaken by the Kāḍava king—who had a vanguard of forest troops and had grown strong by the accession of the troops from foreign lands (*mlēcchadēśa*),—and together with his followers was taken captive after a fight. By this enemy who had descended on him like a bolt from the blue, who, by his many stratagems, seemed a partial incarnation of Śambara, who was the very embodiment of guile in the cunning devices he adopted,—by this enemy, the King (Rājarāja) was dragged to his own city Jayantamangala. When he heard this painful news, (Narasimha) started (from his capital) in a few days, reached the northern bank of the Kāvērī and encamped in the neighbourhood of Śrīrangam, and despatched his *daṇḍanātha* to punish all the enemy *sāmantas*, brought about the release of his friend, the Cōḷa king, and levied tribute from the Pāṇḍya….’.

c24.15

The Tiruvēndipuram inscription narrates the campaign of the Hoysala Daṇḍanāthas in considerable detail, and establishes the identity of Kāḍava chieftain, who attacked and imprisoned Rājarāja and subsequently released him, with the celebrated Kōpperuñjinga (Mahārāja-simha in Sanskrit) who fills a rather large place in the annals of the period. Other inscriptions from the Tamil and Kannaḍa country confirm these facts.

c24.16

That Kōpperuñjinga had come of age and was already prominent among the Kāḍava chieftains, and that these chieftains still acknowledged the overlordship of the Cōḷa, at least in name, may be inferred from an inscription²⁶ found in Vṛddhācalam, dated in the 14th year of Rājarāja (A.D. 1230) and recording an endowment by one of the *agambaḍi mudalis* of Kōpperuñjinga. The Tiruvēndipuram inscription opens with a statement of the facts mentioned in the *Gadyakarṇāmṛta*, adding piquancy to the reports of Kōpperuñjinga's misdeeds that reached Narasimha; for here he is said not only to have imprisoned the Cōḷa emperor (*śōḷa-cakravarti*) at Sēndamangalam, but to have employed his troops to devastate the Cōḷa country and desecrate its temples including Viṣṇusthānas—the Hoysalas were staunch Vaiṣṇavas. Narasimha left Dōrasamudra, continues the inscription, saying that he would not allow his trumpet (*kāḷam*) to be blown until after he had re-established his name as the Defender of the Cōḷa monarchy (*Cōḷa-maṇḍalapratiṣṭhācārya*); he uprooted the Magara kingdom,²⁷ doubtless an ally of the Pāṇḍya and Kāḍava, on his way, and encamped at Pāccūr, two miles to the north of the Coleroon opposite Śrīraṅgam. From his camp, Narasimha despatched two *daṇḍanāyakas*, Appaṇṇa and Samudra Goppayya, with orders to carry destruction into the country of Kōpperuñjiṅga and re-instal the Cōḷa emperor in his place. Accordingly, the two commanders sacked Eḷḷēri and Kalliyūr-mūlai held by Kōpperuñjiṅga, and Toḷudagaiyūr held by Śōḷa-kōn, evidently one of his lieutenants, killed some of the mudalis of the king (Rājarāja) and Parākramabāhu, the king of Ceylon, who had joined the enemy, and, after worshipping the God of Cidambaram, they devastated many places such as Toṇḍamānallūr, Tiruvadi and Tiruvakkarai, to the south of the river Vāraṇavāsi (Gaḍilam) and east of Śēndamaṅgalam, and struck terror into the hearts of the inhabitants by burning crops,²⁸ capturing women and plundering people; finally they made preparations to invest Śēndamaṅgalam, when Kōpperuñjiṅga sent word to Narasimha that he was ready to restore the Cōḷa emperor to liberty and his throne, and Narasimha transmitted the offer to his commanders. Then they received the Cōḷa emperor with honour and accompanied him back to his country.

c24.17

So far the Tiruvēndipuram inscription. The suggestion has been made that the inscription is found engraved in this village, because it was here that the Hoysala generals took leave of the Cōḷa king Rājarāja III, after his restoration.²⁹ All the villages mentioned in this inscription have been traced in the South Arcot district. It is not clear, however, who the Ceylon ruler Parākramabāhu was. He cannot be identical with Parākramabāhu II of Ceylon who came to the throne in 1236,³⁰ for here Parākramabāhu is said to have lost his life in the year 1230. He was perhaps some other prince of the Ceylonese royal family and may be taken to correspond to the *mlēccha* and *vaidēśika* help which Kōpperuñjinga commanded in this fight, according to the author of the *Gadya-karṇāmṛta*.

c24.18

Other inscriptions confirm these facts and in one important respect supplement the Tiruvēndipuram record. One of them states that Appaṇṇa and Goppayya earned the praises of Narasimha by attacking the Kāḍavarāya and releasing the Cōḷa.³¹ Another inscription dated A.D. 1232 states that the country round Niḍūr in the Tanjore district was formerly ruled by Kōpperuñjinga, and records a revision of the rules of tenancy cultivation rendered necessary thereby.31a An undated inscription from Vāyalūr (Vailur, N. Arcot)³² mentions that Kōpperuñjinga *alias* Aḷagiya Śīya defeated the Cōḷa King at Teḷḷāṟu (30 miles south of Kāñcī), a fact mentioned nowhere else, and having cast him and his ministers in prison, occupied the Cōḷa country. After the brief prose passage recording these facts, there occur five verses in different metres in praise of Kōpperuñjinga's heroism in which, of course, we hear nothing of the release of the Cōḷa or of the success of the Hoysaḷa generals, but only of the defeat of the Karṇāṭas and the glories of Kōpperuñjinga, also called by the titles Avani-Nārāyaṇa, Nṛpatunga, and ruler of Toṇḍai and Mallai. The same features recur in other inscriptions of his in the Sanskrit language.³³ That Kōpperuñjinga and the Hoysaḷas continued their fights becomes clear from the fact that Vīra Sōmēśvara is said to have encamped at Mangaḷam in the course of a campaign against the Kāḍava in the year Durmukha (A.D. 1236).³⁴

c24.19

While his generals were carrying out his instructions regarding Kōpperuñjinga and the Cōḷa king, Narasimha himself conducted operations against the Pāṇḍya. The *Gadyakarṇāmṛta* asserts that Narasimha levied tribute from the Pāṇḍya ruler, and it seems that the decisive encounter between the Pāṇḍya and Hoysaḷa troops took place at Mahēndramangalam on the Kāvērī river.³⁵ An inscription at Haranahalḷi³⁶ mentions that Narasimha was encamped at Ravitaḍānakoppa with the object of leading a campaign against the Pāṇḍya king and states that the sea was roaring out its advice to the latter to give up everything to the Hoysala and live in peace as his servant. Other Hoysala inscriptions state that Rāmēśvaram was reached in the course of this campaign or soon after.³⁷ We hear nothing of all this from the Pāṇḍya inscriptions. In the *praśasti* of Māṟavarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I, the account of his second campaign against the Cōḷa stops with the *vijayābhiṣēka*, and this is obviously not the whole truth; for it leaves unexplained the restoration of Rājarāja to the Cōḷa throne after he was forced to relinquish it to the Pāṇḍyan invader. There can be no doubt that for a second time the Hoysala maintained the balance of power among the southern kingdoms by preventing the abolition of the independent Cōḷa monarchy and the annexation of its territory to the Pāṇḍyan kingdom. The political settlement reached at the close of these campaigns in aid of the Cōḷa seems to have been sealed by dynastic marriages; Vīra Sōmēśvara, the son of Vīra Narasimha, is called *māmaḍi* by the successors of both Mār. Sundara Pāṇḍya I and Rājarāja III.³⁸

c24.20

For the rest of his reign, Rājarāja continued to enjoy his position without any serious trouble. The provenance of Rājarāja's inscriptions shows that for the bulk of the period his nominal sway extended over practically the whole of the Cōḷa kingdom as it was at the death of Kulōttunga III. The contents of the inscriptions indicate equally clearly the growing dependence of the Cōḷa power on Hoysala support and the progressive increase of local disorders and treasons and the disregard of the feudatories of the empire for the central power. The forms of central government and local administration appear to have remained the same as before; but the executive strength of the government, never very great in the Hindu state, but realised in a greater measure under the great Cōḷas than under any other dynasty, was now visibly on the wane. In A.D. 1246,³⁹ Rājēndra was recognised as heir apparent, as is seen from the dates in his inscriptions. But Rājarāja lived on till at least 1260.

c24.21

The inscriptions of Rājarāja III dated up to the thirtieth year if not later are found in the modern districts of Salem, Chittoor, Cuddapah and Nellore; we find also the inscriptions of his successor Rājēndra III over practically the same area; these facts imply that the hegemony of the Cōḷa power continued to be recognised over the whole of this area in this period. But this was no more than a traditional form which apparently persisted for some time after its substance had disappeared. For nothing stands out in clearer relief from the records of the time than the absence of a central co-ordinating authority, and the readiness with which treasons and conspiracies seem to have been set on foot. We have traced the growth of the practice among local chieftains of contracting alliances for offence and defence without any regard to the central government; the habit had spread to the heart of the Cōḷa country by the beginning of Rājarāja’s reign and there is an instance⁴⁰ of three chiefs in the Tanjore district itself contracting such a mutual alliance in the third year of the reign, A.D. 1219; except for the facts that the inscription recording this event is dated in a regnal year of Rājarāja III, and the treaty of alliance acknowledged a common fealty due from the allies to the Cōḷa king, which perhaps meant that the alliance would not hold against that ruler, there is no evidence that the government of Rājarāja had anything to do with it. Another instance of a rather protracted feud ending in a matrimonial alliance between the parties is furnished by a record of A.D. 1232 from Tiruveṇṇainallūr;⁴¹ the parties to the dispute and to the alliance that followed it were members of the Kāḍavarāya and Cēdirāya families.

c24.22

Instances of treason have reached us not through direct testimony, but by the indirect evidence of inscriptions recording the public sale of land and other property forfeited to the state on account of treasonable offences (*rājadrōham*); it is not possible, therefore, to discover the exact nature of the offences which led to the punishment or any details regarding them. Though such cases were not unknown under other Cōḷa rulers, the number of reported instances is unusually large during Rājarāja’s reign, and it appears legitimate to suppose that this is partly due to the unsettled condition of the land and the loss of strength and efficiency in the central government. There was a public auction (*Rājarājapperu-

c24.23

<!-- Footnotes 40 and 41 are referenced on this page but not printed at the bottom of it. -->

c24.24

*vilai*) in Shiyali (Tanjore Dt.) on the 317th day of the eighth regnal year of the king,⁴² at which the king's officers specially chosen for the purpose disposed of lands belonging to some traitors and such among their relations, employees and slaves as had been involved in the treason (*drōhattukku uṭpaṭṭārum*). An inscription from Valivalam (Tanjore district)⁴³ records that in A.D. 1230, a commission of eight royal officers realised 33,000 *kāśus* as proceeds of a similar sale of lands forfeited by persons who had turned against the king—*drohigaḻāyp-palaraiyum kāṇi māṟina nilam*. Again at Kōyil Tirumalam,⁴⁴ an order of confiscation issued on the 348th day of the 20th year, was given effect to on the 80th day of the succeeding year, at an interval of about three months, and five *vēli* and four *mā* of land yielded to the royal treasury a sum of 13,000 *kāśūs*. More details are forthcoming in regard to the next instance from Śivapuram (Tanjore Dt.) and of the twenty-third regnal year;⁴⁵ these details show that the charge of *rājadrōham* should not be understood in the sense that suggests itself at first sight, that of treason in a political sense, but in that of turbulence or persistent insubordination. In this particular case, two *śiva-brāhmaṇas* (temple priests) were punished by the *māhēśvaras* (the congregation) and the *ūr* for *rājadrōham* and *śivadrōham*. The inscription says that the accused handed over to a concubine the jewels belonging to the goddess, misappropriated temple funds entrusted to them, refused to pay the dues on lands held by them, and misbehaved in other ways; they not only ignored commands issued to them by the king, but maltreated the messengers of the king by beating them and ducking them. They are also said to have committed indescribable sins through the *Kannaḍiyas* and to have collected 50,000 (coins?), perhaps a case of irresponsible local oppression. The mention of the *Kannaḍiyas* must be particularly noted; for it points to an incidental result of Hoysaḷa intervention in the Cōḻa kingdom and indicates the presence of bands of mercenaries who had no sympathy with the local population and were ready to carry out the biddings of any ruffian who commanded the means to pay them. There is yet another instance also from the Tanjore district (Tiruveṇkāḍu)⁴⁶ of forfeiture of property for treason which is seen, from the name of the *tirumandira-ōlai*, to be clearly of the reign of Rājarāja III. It is remarkable that all these instances come from the central regions of the Cōḷa kingdom, clear proof that the administration was floundering even in the limited area to which it had become confined by the increasing independence of the greater vassals in the outlying parts of the kingdom.

c24.25

⁴² 397 of 1918.

c24.26

⁴³ 112 of 1911.

c24.27

⁴⁴ 256 of 1925.

c24.28

⁴⁵ 279 of 1927.

c24.29

⁴⁶ 503 of 1918.

c24.30

The intervention of the Hoysala power secured for the Cōḷa kingdom a somewhat longer lease of life than the Pāṇḍyas would have allowed it; but this respite was not obtained without some cost, and it is worth while tracing the part of the Hoysala princes and generals in the affairs of the Cōḷa country as revealed by the Cōḷa inscriptions themselves. An inscription from Tiruvaḍatturai (in the Vṛddhācalam taluq of the South Arcot district) dated in the tenth year,⁴⁷ A.D. 1226, states that the Hoysala king Narasimhadēva had destroyed the country and carried away images from the temple of that village some time before, and records the re-consecration of the temple. The date of this record seems to rule out the possibility of connecting these transactions with the campaign of Appaṇṇa and Samudra Goppayya, recorded in the Tiruvēndipuram inscription.⁴⁸ It has been pointed out before that Narasimha might have taken the side of the Cōḷa earlier on the occasion of the first Pāṇḍyan invasion and proceeded against the Kāḍava ally of the Pāṇḍyan invader.⁴⁹ Possibly, Tiruvaḍatturai was then in the occupation of the Kāḍava and suffered damage as part of the enemy country. The Kāḍava was forced once more to acknowledge the Cōḷa overlordship, and when peace was restored, the people became free to repair the damages inflicted by war. The presence of Hoysala troops (*bhēruṇḍas*) at Kāñcī about this time is attested by the gift of a lamp to Attiyūr Āḻvār by Bācaladēvi, the daughter of Bhūtadēya-nāyaka of Dōrasamudra,⁵⁰ of another lamp three years later by the *mahāpradhāni* Ammaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka,⁵¹ and of a whole village by Goppayya Daṇḍanāyaka in A.D. 1231.⁵² Some time later a *pradhāni* of Sōmēśvara, the son and successor of Narasimha, also makes a gift at Kāñcī.⁵³

c24.31

Hoysala influence in other parts of the kingdom is attested by records of gifts by Vallaya Daṇḍanāyaka, a *pradhāni* of Narasimha, at Tirumalavāḍi⁵⁴ by a member of the subordinate establishment (*śirupiḷḷaigaḷ*) of Narasimha's queen Sōmaladēvi at Tirugōkarṇam;⁵⁵ Vallaya is also seen making another gift at Kāñcīpuram in A.D. 1238, when he is called a *pradhāni* of Sōmēśvara.⁵⁶

c24.32

⁵⁴ 39 of 1920.

c24.33

⁵⁵ 410 of 1902.

c24.34

⁵⁶ 347 of 1919.

c24.35

In fact, after they began sometime about 1218 to take the side of the Cōḷas against the Pāṇḍyas in the struggle between these two powers, the Hoysalas appear steadily to have improved their position and influence in the Cōḷa and the Pāṇḍya kingdoms. They evidently aspired to a sort of hegemony over the whole of South India and to some extent succeeded in realising their ambition for a time, during the second quarter of the thirteenth century. Depending for their very existence on the backing of the Hoysalas, the Cōḷas were in no position to offer any resistance to their aggrandizement; even the Pāṇḍyas found themselves compelled to purchase peace with the Hoysalas by a tacit recognition of their dominant position. Attention may be drawn here to the frequent mention of Hoysala kings and generals in the Pāṇḍyan inscriptions of the period,⁵⁷ and in particular, to two records from Pudukkottah,⁵⁸ dated about A.D. 1245, which mention the capture of Kāna-nāḍu by Ravi-dēva, a general of the Hoysala Vīra-Sōmēśvara. It was not till the rise of the greatest Pāṇḍya ruler of the time, Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, i.e., till after the middle of the century, that the expansion of the Hoysala power received a check.

c24.36

⁵⁷ E.g., 387 of 1906, 612 of 1916.

c24.37

⁵⁸ Pd. 340, 341.

c24.38

For all its weakness, the Cōḷa power maintained the appearance of sovereign rule over a considerable territory almost till towards the end of Rājarāja's long reign. This becomes clear from a review of the inscriptions dated in his regnal years and issued by rulers who still called themselves vassals of the Cōḷa emperor. Even the notorious Kōpperuñjinga was no exception. We have seen that the attempt of this chieftain to throw off his allegiance to his Cōḷa overlord was suppressed in 1230-31 by the intercession of Vīra-Narasimha. The inscriptions of Kōpperuñjinga, however, show that he had a rather long and stormy career, and that in the political confusion that prevailed in the period, he found it easy to set himself up as a more or less independent ruler and pursue a policy of his own towards the neighbouring states. He counts his regnal years from A.D. 1243 and inscriptions citing these years run in a series up to the thirty-sixth year, c. A.D. 1279, i.e., almost to the end of the period covered by this chapter. It is needless to follow here the details of his career. His conflicts with the Hoysalas and the Kākatīyas whose supremacy he had to acknowledge in the north,⁵⁹ the attack on his capital Sēndamangalam delivered by Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, and the numberless gifts made and constructions undertaken by Kōpperuñjinga at various places in the whole area extending from Tanjore as far as Drākṣārāma and Tripurāntakam—these do not properly belong to Cōḷa history. It should, however, be noted that as late as A.D. 1246 and 1247 we find the officials and relatives of Kōpperuñjinga, if not the chieftain himself, acknowledging the overlordship of Rājarāja III.⁶⁰ Among the other feudatories, the Telugu-Cōḍas, of whom something has been said already, may be noted first. Manumasiddharasa who had the title Cāḷukya-nārāyaṇa and made a gift to the great Śiva temple at Kañcīpuram in A.D. 1218;⁶¹ Madhurāntaka Pottappiccōḷa Erasiddharasa, gifts from whose officials and relatives are recorded in Rājarāja's inscriptions from Kañcīpuram and Nellore between his fifth and eleventh regnal years;⁶² Malamādēvarasa and Puḍōliyarasa mentioned in records of the sixth and eighth years of Rājarāja from the Chittoor district;⁶³ and the great Tikka I himself who figures under the name Gaṇḍagōpāla along with his queen and his officials in a large number of Rājarāja's inscriptions,⁶⁴ are the chief among the Telugu-Cōḍas who flourished in this reign. Likewise we find a number of Yādavarāyas, Śāmbuvarāyas and Cēdiyarāyas also among the feudatories, particularly in the earlier years of the reign; it is not necessary to repeat the names of these chieftains which may be gathered by a perusal of the inscriptions of the reign; but the fact that so many of these well-known local dynasties continued to acknowledge the Cōḷa overlordship till so late in the reign of Rājarāja is of some significance in the history of the decline and fall of the Cōḷa empire. Some of the names show that chieftains of Bāṇa, Vaidumba, Nuḷamba and Ganga extraction were also counted among these feudatories. We have already mentioned Hoysaḷa generals citing the regnal years of Rājarāja while recording their gifts in' Kāñcīpuram, Karuvūr⁶⁵ and other places. Even a Kaliṅga ruler Aṇiyaṅga Bhīmadēva Rāhuta adopts this course in making an endowment in Kāñcīpuram in the twentieth year of Rājarāja, a.d. 1236.⁶⁶ These facts show that the hold of the Cōḷa empire on the imagination of the people was still great, even after the disasters brought on it by the incompetence and cowardice of Rājarāja III.

c24.39

Rājēndra, who, as we have seen, was recognised as heir apparent in a.d. 1246, was an abler prince than Rājarāja III. His inscriptions contain a Sanskrit *praśasti* which records his efforts to restore to the Cōḷas at least a part of their ancient power and prestige which they had lost so completely owing to the utter incapacity of Rājarāja. For fourteen years after his right to the succession was recognised, Rājarāja continued to rule in name, but there can be little doubt that during all this period, and perhaps even for some years before, the substance of power lay in the hands of his abler colleague. The inscriptions of Rājarāja diminish in their number and range in the closing years of his reign, particularly from the thirty-fourth regnal year, when they are confined practically to the two modern districts of North Arcot and Nellore. In the same period, the inscriptions of Rājēndra, on the other hand, are relatively more numerous and come from practically all parts of the Cōḷa kingdom. This can hardly be an accident, and must be ascribed to some definite understanding by which the baneful effects of Rājarāja's political incompetence were circumscribed. There is no evidence that Rājarāja and Rājēndra were ever engaged in a civil war, as has sometimes been thought, or that there was a formal division of the kingdom, or finally, that Rājarāja was murdered by Rājēndra.⁶⁷

c24.40

It may be doubted if the *praśasti* of Rājēndra mentions the historical facts recorded in it in the order of their occurrence, and considering the fact that the *praśasti* can be traced to the seventh year of Rājēndra, a.d. 1253, when Rājarāja was still alive, we may conclude that in a few years after he became heir apparent, Rājēndra had gone some way to realise his ambitious programme of recovery. The evidence of Hoysaḷa inscriptions renders it even probable that he entered on this task earlier than 1246. The *praśasti* says that Rājēndra avenged the humiliation put upon the Cōḷa power and that by his prowess he enabled Rājarāja to wear two crowns for three years.⁶⁸ In some redactions, the *praśasti* also states that Rājēndra was expert in cutting off the crowned head of the Pāṇḍya,⁶⁹ while an inscription from Tripurāntakam,⁷⁰ dated in the fifteenth year, contains the more sober claim: *iruvar pāṇḍyar muḍittalai-koṇḍaruḷina*. Rājēndra is also said to have plundered the Pāṇḍya country. It is clear that Rājēndra gained some success against the Pāṇḍyas and that the second crown he claims to have bestowed on the Cōḷa ruler was the Pāṇḍyan crown.⁷¹ The Pāṇḍyas had carried fire and sword into the Cōḷa country twice in twenty years and had been the cause of the rebellion of Kōpperuñjiṅga and his imprisonment of Rājarāja. Rājēndra’s anxiety to strike the first blow at them was therefore quite natural. But when did he get his chance, and why did the effect of his success not last for more than three years? And who were the two Pāṇḍyan kings who had to own defeat at his hands? Now it seems hardly likely that Rājēndra achieved anything against the powerful Māṟavarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I. But after his death, until the accession of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I in A.D. 1251, the Pāṇḍyan kingdom was held by weak rulers, and it is quite possible that Māṟavarman Sundara Pāṇḍya II (acc. 1238) was the king who was compelled for a time to acknowledge the Cōḷa overlordship. The identity of the other Pāṇḍya, perhaps co-ruler with Māṟavarman Sundara II, remains obscure. We are perfectly justified in assigning these events to the reign of Māṟavarman Sundara II, because he is known to have been a weak ruler, and in his reign, as in the earlier part of the reign of Rājarāja III Cōḷa, the influence of the Hoysaḷas on the affairs of the kingdom is visibly on the increase.⁷² This may be due to the same cause, the Hoysaḷa protection afforded to its ruler against the aggressions of a more active and powerful neighbour. Vīra-Sōmēśvara is called, in some Mysore records, *Pāṇḍya-kula-samrakṣaṇa-* *dakṣa-dakṣiṇa-bhuja*,⁷³ (the king) whose right arm is expert in protecting the dynasty of the Pāṇḍyas. About the same time, Sōmēśvara is said to have defeated Rājēndra on the field of battle and to have protected him when he sought refuge.⁷⁴ It is probably these facts that account also for some expressions found in Rājēndra's inscriptions.⁷⁵

c24.41

⁷³ EC. v, Ak. 123.

c24.42

⁷⁴ ib. Ak. 125.

c24.43

⁷⁵ See below.

c24.44

An inscription from Vēdāraṇyam⁷⁶ states that in the twenty-fifth year of Rājarāja III, a.d. 1241, Singaṇa Daṇḍanāyaka invaded that part of the Cōḷa country, that the inroad led to the cessation of worship in a temple, and that some time later, the temple had to be reconsecrated at a cost of 50,000 *kāśus*. A duplicate inscription from Pudukkottah,⁷⁷ dated in a.d. 1245, mentions the capture some years before of Kāna-nāḍu on behalf of Vīra Sōmēśvara by his *daṇḍanāyaka* Ravi-dēva. We have thus sufficient evidence to show that after Rājēndra came on the field, there was a change in the part played by the Hoysalas. When the Cōḷas showed signs of recovery under the energetic leadership of Rājēndra and the Pāṇḍyas were, in their turn, somewhat weakening, the Hoysalas lent their support without any hesitation to the Pāṇḍyas, as against the Cōḷas. The trend of Hoysala diplomacy is plain. It was to keep the balance even between the Pāṇḍya and Cōḷa powers, to encourage both to look to the Hoysalas for assistance in times of need and thus to secure for themselves a dominant place in the state-system of the south. Evidently, Rājēndra was compelled to give up all claims to supremacy over the Pāṇḍyas after a period of three years, marked by some hard fighting in different areas. We have as yet no clear knowledge of the details.⁷⁸

c24.45

⁷⁶ 501 of 1904.

c24.46

⁷⁷ 340 of Pd.

c24.47

⁷⁸ The Pāṇḍya inscriptions (e.g. 387 of 1906, 122 of 1924) of these years may furnish the necessary evidence when their dates are properly fixed.

c24.48

The growth of differences between Sōmēśvara and the Cōḷas on their Pāṇḍyan policy forced the latter to seek other allies for themselves. The Telugu-Cōḍas of Nellore had attained considerable power and were ruling over an extensive territory in the Nellore, Chingleput and Cuddapah districts. We have seen that these rulers were on the whole more friendly with the Cōḷa monarchs of the south and ready to acknowledge their formal suzerain position. Tikkanṛpati alias Gaṇḍagōpāla⁷⁹ was the contemporary ruler of Nellore and there is clear literary evidence of his friendship with the Cōḷas and his hostility to the Hoysalas. In the introductory verses to his *Nirvacanōttara Rāmāyaṇamu*, Tikkana has given a fairly complete and sober account of the achievements of Tikka, the father of his patron Manmasiddha. From this account we learn that Tikka fought against Śamburāja and other enemy *maṇḍalikas* and that he compelled Kāñcī, Cēdimaṇḍala and the Kāḍavapati to acknowledge his supremacy. The importance of these successes was that they checked the predatory activities of the turbulent Kōpperuñjinga and his confederates and thereby strengthened the position of the Cōḷa monarch. The presence of Gaṇḍagōpāla's inscriptions dated about A.D. 1230 and later⁸⁰ in Kāñcīpuram and its neighbourhood, and the fact that many of them are dated in the regnal years of Rājarāja corroborate the statements of Tikkana Sōmayāji on the relations between Tikka and the Cōḷas. The same poet also states expressly that Tikka subdued the Karṇāṭa ruler Sōmēśvara and thereby easily established the Cōḷa in his position and earned for himself the title *Cōḷasthāpanācārya*. This is again confirmed by a Hoysala inscription of Ś. 1162 (A.D. 1240)⁸¹ which mentions an expedition of Sōmēśvara against the Gaṇḍagōpāla. Once more the date of the Hoysala record indicates that Rājēndra's activities for the restoration of Cōḷa power were begun some years prior to his formal installation as heir-apparent. We thus see that the accession of a weak Pāṇḍyan ruler, the commencement of Rājēndra's campaign of recovery, the estrangement between the Cōḷas and the Hoysalas, and the alliance of the Cōḷas with the Telugu-Cōḍas all hang together and constitute a revolution in the political condition of South India. In fact it was an age of rapid changes in the political map of South India. The particular phase that was created by the advent of Rājēndra and has just been described furnishes, it may be noted in passing, a very good example in practice of the diplomatic theory of the *maṇḍala* developed in the scholastic treatises on Hindu polity. The Cōḷa kingdom is surrounded by enemies on all sides, and its only ally is a ruler whose territory lies beyond that of a neighbouring enemy.⁸²

c24.49

⁷⁹ The name forms the subject of an interesting note by Dr. S. K. Aiyangar at pp. 88-91 of *A.S.R.* 1919-20. See also *EI.* vii, p. 152.

c24.50

Another of Rājēndra's successes is described in his *praśasti* in the phrase: 'the very Rāma to the prosperous Northern Laṅkā celebrated for its Vīra-rākṣasa(s)'. This is clearly a reference to a campaign against the Śāmbuvarāyas, some of whom called themselves Vīra-rākṣasa and who held sway in the region of North Arcot.⁸³ Tikkana Sōmayāji states that Tikkanṛpati undertook expeditions against Śamburāja and other hostile *maṇḍalikas* before he established himself at Kāñcīpuram, and it is quite possible that in the wars he co-operated with Rājēndra in the restoration of Cōḷa power.

c24.51

It is thus seen that the attempts of Rājēndra met with a considerable measure of success and that for some years, between 1238 and 1250, the Cōḷa power once more held its own against its enemies and 'feudatories', thanks to the loyalty and co-operation of the Telugu-Cōḍas of Nellore. The attempt to put down the rising power of the Pāṇḍyas necessarily failed; this would have been the case even if Sōmēśvara had not gone to the aid of the Pāṇḍyas; for the latter had always been too strong for the Cōḷas even when the Cōḷa empire was in the prime of its strength; and from the time of Vikrama-cōḷa, the Cōḷa hold on the Pāṇḍya territory had been little more than nominal; and now the Pāṇḍyas had the added prestige born of their recent successes against their quondam suzerains. For the rest of it, however, Rājēndra's achievement is sufficient justification for his being described in his *praśasti* as the 'restorer of the race of Manu' and the 'ruler who avenged the humiliation of the Cōḷas.'

c24.52

Kāñcīpuram does not figure among the conquests of Rājēndra and it is worth while to notice briefly the fortunes of the city in this period. The latest Cōḷa records traceable here appear to be dated about A.D. 1245 in the twenty-ninth year of Rājarāja III, and not a single record of Rājēndra III is to be found in Kāñcīpuram. On the other hand we find an inscription of Kākātīya Gaṇapati dated Tuesday, June 8, A.D. 1249 recording a large grant by one of his ministers Sāmanta Bhōja. There is an inscription from Nandalūr which, in spite of many gaps, clearly shows that Tikka's son, Manmasiddhi, and Gaṇapati were friends. There is again a tradition that the great Telugu poet Tikkana secured the intercession of Gaṇapati in the affairs of the Telugu-Cōḍa kingdom on behalf of Manmasiddha when he was sought to be kept out of the succession. We have not as yet any decisive evidence of the date of Gaṇapati’s interference, if he actually did interfere in the manner just mentioned. We may also note that some years later, when Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya killed Gaṇḍagōpāla, i.e. Tikka, in battle and conquered the Telugu-Cōḍa kingdom, he became master of Kāñcīpuram and Nellore and put Gaṇapati to flight. We may therefore suppose that Kāñcīpuram had for some years become part of the Telugu-Cōḍa kingdom under Tikka, that he held it in nominal subjection to Rājarāja III in the beginning, and to Gaṇapati later on, until the city was captured by the Pāṇḍyan invader. The Cōḷas then did not long keep their hold on Kāñcī for which Kulōttunga III had fought successfully in the latter part of his reign. With the rise of Kōpperuñjinga into independence, the Cōḷa king must have found it difficult to maintain his power in Kāñcī and acquiesced in the virtual annexation of the city by his ally, the Telugu-Cōḍa ruler.

c24.53

Their differences over the Pāṇḍyan policy resulted, as we have seen, in hostilities between the Cōḷas and the Hoysalas in which the former were aided by the Telugu-Cōḍa Tikka I; this seems to have been, however, only a passing phase; the inscriptions of Sōmēśvara imply the resumption of friendly relations between him and Rājēndra, after a temporary estrangement, and this is confirmed by the inscriptions of Rājēndra in which Hoysala officers figure as donors as in those of Rājarāja III.⁸⁴ This friendship between the Cōḷas and the Hoysalas was continued up to and even beyond the death of Sōmēśvara. Two inscriptions from Tiruccatturai⁸⁵ in the Tanjore district are of great significance in this regard; one of them mentions the tenth year of Vīra Rāmanātha, the successor of Sōmēśvara in the southern half of the Hoysala kingdom, and records a sale of land effected in the twentieth year of Rājēndra (A.D. 1265-6), while the other couples the fifteenth year of Rāmanātha with the twenty-fifth of Rājēndra. These records attest the closest possible alliance between the two rulers, if not actually their joint rule over the territory where the inscriptions are found.⁸⁶

c24.54

The reason for this close alliance between the Cōḷa and Hoysaḷa is doubtless to be found in the new danger from the south that threatened both. The accession of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I, a.d. 1251 to the Pāṇḍyan throne brought on the stage one of the most famous warriors and conquerors of Southern India. Under him the second empire of the Pāṇḍyas attained its greatest splendour, and all the other powers of South India, up to the river Kṛṣṇa and even beyond, felt the weight of his arm, the Hoysaḷas and the Cōḷas being the first to do so.⁸⁷ The Pāṇḍyan ruler had achieved signal success against the Cōḷa and the Hoysaḷa before the seventh year of his reign, a.d. 1258; he had laid the Cōḷa under tribute and compelled the Hoysaḷa to seek safety by retiring to the Mysore plateau; and when Sōmēśvara renewed the war, he was defeated and killed in a battle fought near Kaṇṇanūr, a.d. 1264. Very soon after, he carried his arms across the territory of the Kāḍavas and Telugu-Cōḍas, up to Nellore where he held a *Vīrābhiṣēka*. When the tide of Pāṇḍyan power was thus rising to its full height, Rājēndra III and Vīra Rāmanātha had to carry on anyhow without provoking the mighty conqueror and they must have been drawn more closely together by their common adversity. They were both defeated in battle about 1279 by Māṟavarman Kulaśēkhara, the successor of Sundara Pāṇḍya.

c24.55

Very few inscriptions of Rājēndra are found outside the Cōḷa country proper, and none after his fifteenth year, a.d. 1261. An inscription of the thirteenth year a.d. 1259 from Nandalūr in Cuddapah, and another dated two years later from Tripurāntakam (Kurnool) are the last traces of a suzerainty that had long ceased to be more than nominal.

c24.56

The latest regnal year cited in the inscriptions of Rājēndra is the thirty-third, corresponding roughly to a.d. 1279. An undated inscription from Tirukkaṇṇapuram⁸⁸ mentions a certain Śēmāppiḷḷai called by the king '*nammagan*', 'our son'; but as this description is often applied to feudatories in Cōḷa inscriptions, it is doubtful if Śēmāpiḷḷai was really a son of Rājēndra III.⁸⁹ He also figures as a feudatory of Vīra Pāṇḍya. A queen of Rājēndra is apparently mentioned under the title Śōḷa-kula-mādēviyār in an inscription from Tiruveṇṇainallūr about A.D. 1263.⁹⁰ Rājēndra apparently had few feudatories under him; a Śōḷa-Gaṅgan and a Kaḷappāḷan are the only names to be noted in this connection.⁹¹ Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḷapuram continued to be the capital, and God Naṭarāja of Cidambaram the *iṣṭadēvata* of the king.

c24.57

At the close of Rājēndra’s reign, the Pāṇḍyan empire was at the height of its prosperity and had taken the place of the Cōḷa empire in the eyes of foreign observers like the Chinese and the Arabs. There is no evidence that Rājēndra was followed immediately by another Cōḷa prince, so that the Cōḷa kingdom was more completely absorbed in the Pāṇḍyan empire than the southern kingdom ever was in the Cōḷa empire in the days of its glory. The name Cōḷa-maṇḍalam long survived the Cōḷa kingdom itself and was subsequently corrupted into Coromandel. Chieftains of later times sometimes claimed descent from the Cōḷas either through branches of the Telugu-Cōḍa dynasty or more directly from the Cōḷas of the Tamil country. A certain Vīra Śaiva Vīra Pratāpa Cōḷa Rāja with many high-sounding titles is found ruling in the Bangalore district in Ś. 1223, A.D. 1301.⁹² About the same time Vīra Cōḍa and his son Vīra Campa are found in the North Arcot district.⁹³ An otherwise unknown branch of Telugu-Cōḍas is represented in the Madras Museum plates of Bhaktirāja dated Ś. 1277.⁹⁴ Very much later, in A.D. 1481 and 1530 we find inscriptions in the island of Śrīraṅgam recording gifts by Vālaka Kāmaya and Cennaya Bālaya, both bearing the characteristic Telugu-Cōḍa title, *Uṟaiyūrpuravarādhīśvara*.⁹⁵ The Cōḷas are mentioned in the Koḷiñjivāḍi plates of Acyutadēvarāya.⁹⁶ Among the latest references to chieftains of Cōḷa extraction must be counted an interesting record from Kumbakōṇam of the grant of two villages for worship and offerings to Ādi-Kumbhēśvara by Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Gururāja Rudradēva-Śōḷa-Mahārāja in Ś. 1476 (A.D. 1554).⁹⁷ 4. Contra *ARE.* 1909, II, 51, 52. Rājendra is regarded by some as the son of Rājarāja III by Sōmaladēvī, daughter of Hoysaḷa Narasimha II, *ARE.* 1936-7 II 33 and 48; also 1938-9 II 24. *EI.* xxvii p. 194 makes him son of Kulōttunga III on very slender evidence.

c24.58

¹ *EI.* viii, p. 260, Kielhorn. 169 of 1942-3 couples Ś. 1162 (A.D. 1240) with year 24 of Rājarāja III—*ARE.* 1939|40—42|3, II 42.

c24.59

² 409 of 1908.

c24.60

5. 116 of 1911 (n-d).

c24.61

6. 51 of 1931, 76 of 1920, 23 of 1891, 93 of 1892, etc.

c24.62

7. 125 of 1912.

c24.63

8. 120 of 1912 (Yr. 20), also from Tiruvorṟiyūr.

First 62 of 146 passages. Read on

Linked texts (11)