The Colas c24.24

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.