Studies in Cola History and Administration c14: VII. Naralōkavīra: A Cōḷa Feudatory
Studies in Cōḻa History and Administration c14
- Language
- English
VII. Naralōkavīra: A Cōḷa Feudatory
c14.1
NARALŌKAVĪRA
c14.3
The establishment of the Cōḷa empire was a landmark in the history of South India. Under the Cōḷas all the country to the south of the Kṛṣṇā river was for the first time brought under the supremacy of a fairly strong central government, and for over two centuries, its different parts came to be ruled, not as independent principalities exhausting themselves in ceaseless strife with one another, but as well-regulated provinces of a unified empire. Some fighting indeed there always was, and it was occasionally directed to the suppression of local risings, and more often to the conquest of fresh territory for the empire. But on the whole, it was a comparatively peaceful time for the bulk of Southern India, and the common people had perhaps no greater concern with the military transactions of its rulers than they have to-day with the suppression of a Moplah revolt or the expeditions on the North-West frontier of India. There were indeed some striking differences. Then the people furnished the soldiers for the whole army, and manned the navy, and war-experience must have been more wide-spread among them than now. By the opportunities it afforded for distinction in the service of the king and the prospect of a promotion into the new class of official nobility, service in the army and the navy must have been quite popular. The rapid growth of an efficient and strong bureaucracy doubtless offered attractive careers to many in the lower rungs of the civil service of the land. Those who did not enter public service minded their lands, the Lacedaemonians, who had been waiting for the signal, now attacked the city. The Plataeans, seeing the enemy already inside and their own men falling, and knowing nothing of the plot, were seized with panic and, thinking that the Thebans were far more numerous than they really were, surrendered at discretion. But when they discovered that the Thebans were few, they took heart and, resolving to attack them, closed the gates and fell upon them.
c14.4
The Thebans, finding themselves in a trap, began to defend themselves. Twice or thrice they repelled the attacks of the Plataeans, but when the women and slaves began to shout and throw tiles and stones from the houses, and a heavy rain began to fall, the Thebans, confused and blinded, broke and fled through the city. Most of them, not knowing the way in the darkness and rain, fell into the drains or were killed by the Plataeans, who knew the streets. The gate through which they had entered had been shut by a Plataean who had found a javelin-head and used it as a bolt, so that there was no way out. Pursued through the city, some climbed the wall and jumped down, most of them perishing; others reached the gate and, finding it shut, were cut down by the women and slaves. A small party, seeing a large building with an open door, rushed in, thinking it was a gate, and were captured.
c14.5
Meanwhile, the main body of the Thebans, who were to have arrived at daybreak to support the first party, had been delayed by the rain and the swollen river Asopus. When they heard of the disaster, they hurried to the city, intending to seize any Plataeans who might be outside the walls. The Plataeans, suspecting their intention, sent a herald to them, warning them not to harm the prisoners they had taken, and threatening to kill them if they did not withdraw from their territory. The Thebans, upon this, retired.
c14.6
The Plataeans, having thus cleared the city, collected their dead and the prisoners. The prisoners, numbering about one hundred and eighty, were executed the next day, despite a message from the Thebans claiming that they had surrendered on terms. The Plataeans denied this, asserting that they had promised to spare them only if they did not commit further acts of violence.
c14.7
Thus ended the attempt of the Thebans upon Plataea, an event which was the immediate cause of the war between Athens and the Peloponnesians. The Plataeans, having secured their city, sent a messenger to Athens with the news, and the Athenians, fearing for the safety of the Plataeans, sent a garrison to their aid and removed the women and children to Athens.
c14.8
CENTRAL SHRINE OF THE SIVA TEMPLE TIRUVADI WEST VIEW
c14.9
and followed other vocations of a more or less hereditary nature. There was a fair amount of inland trade, and larger opportunities for the speculative and the venturesome to make fortunes in foreign trade which was largely concentrated in seaport towns. Then, as now, the bulk of the people lived in villages which, in various ways and with many differences, were on the whole free to look after their own affairs. Religious festivals and fairs, dance, song and the drama were among the amusements of the people. Caste and merchant guilds, religious and secular associations of various kinds shared with the king's government the great task of upholding social order by the promotion of learning and the arts, and the detection and punishment of crime. A mis-appropriation of common funds, a theft of temple jewels, an exhorbitant demand of the tax-gatherer, some breach of caste rules or conventions, such were the occasions that added spice to life in the villages, and sometimes roused the people to an unwonted display of energy.
c14.10
In the higher branches of the king's service there was then no separation between the civil and military functions of officials. Scions of the royal family often occupied the top places, or held command over expeditionary forces; but there were many high offices, and though we have no evidence of any scientific system of recruitment having prevailed, we can see that these offices were held by men of all castes and creeds, and we may well believe that ordinarily, though birth and high connections brought their own initial advantages, inefficiency was not tolerated, and merit was rewarded according to its deserts. Despite the striking abundance of Cōḷa inscriptions, some of them giving copious details of the administrative methods and machinery of the empire, we possess little knowledge of the forms in which officials in public service were paid for the work they did. We may guess that in the highly developed system of the time, periodical payments, in cash or kind, of amounts fixed in advance, must have been the normal rule, especially in the lower ranks of the public service. Several instances occur, however, which prove that assignments of land, either in full ownership or with title only to particular taxes and dues thereon, formed a common method of recognising distinguished service. High officials, so remunerated and standing well with the king, were great assets to the empire in the days of its strength; in the days of its decline and fall, these very men by their local influence and their turbulence and insubordination hastened the end. It is the aim of this paper to present the life and achievement of one such official in the days when the Cōḷa empire was still strong and flourishing.
c14.11
Inscriptions form the principal source of our knowledge of Naralōkavīra. Some of these are directly concerned with him, while in the others he is mentioned incidentally. Two inscriptions, which happen to be very well preserved, give a rather long and full account, though in very ornate and sometimes obscure verse, of the life and activity of Naralōkavīra. Besides the inscriptions, there is a brief but invaluable allusion to him in the *Vikramaśōḷan-ulā*, a contemporary poem by the celebrated poet Oṭṭakkūttar. The inscriptions on which this study is based are the following:—
c14.12
*A - Inscriptions bearing directly on Naralōkavīra and his work.*
c14.13
(1) No. 367 of 1909 (Grantha-verse) - Siddhaliṅgamaḍam (South Arcot). A minister of king Rājēndra Cōḷa, named Sabhānartaka, Kāliṅgarāja and
c14.14
NARALOKAVIRA
c14.15
Mānāvatāra, the ruler of Maṇavil, built a stone temple for Śiva at Siddhaliṅga. The composer of the Sanskrit verse was a certain Aṇḍapiḷḷai-bhaṭṭan.
c14.16
(2) 374 of 1908-(Tamil)-Neyvāṇai (South Arcot) of the twenty-eighth year of Rājakēsari Kulōttuṅga I, with the pugal-mādu introduction. Records gift of lands under the name ‘Śuṅgandavitta-Śōḷa-nallūr’ at the request of Poṟkōyil Toṇḍaimāṉ, a native of Arumbākkam in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-śōḷamaṇḍalam.
c14.17
(3) 369 of 1909-(Grantha-verse)-Siddhaliṅgamaḍam-(South Arcot)-of the reign of Jayadhara dated Ś. 1025. The ruler of Maṇavil, called also Mānāvatāra and Nartaka, built a vimāna, and a prākāra surrounded by areca-palms, together with a maṇḍapa, at the agrahāra called Siddhaliṅga, for Śiva whose feet were worshipped by Vyāghrapāda. *
c14.18
(4) 207 of 1923-(Tamil)-Tiruppulivanam (Chingleput)-of the 45th year of Rājakēsari Kulōttuṅga I with the pugal-mādu introduction. Gift of twelve kalañju of gold for four lamps by Poṉṉambalakkūttan alias Arumbākkiḷāṉ Kāliṅgarāja of Maṇavil in Maṇayirkōṭṭam.
c14.19
(5) 175 of 1919-(Tamil)-Tribhuvani (Pondichery) of the sixth year of Parakēsari Vikrama-śōḷadēva with the pūmādu puṇara introduction. Gift of land for temple site and premises, a hall and flower-gardens to Aruḷākara Īśvaram Uḍaiyār, set up in the fifth year of Vikrama-śōḷa, for the prosperity of the king and the village, by Arumbākkiḷāṉ Madurāntakan Poṉṉambalakkūttan alias Poṟkōyil Toṇḍaimāṉār, residing in Maṇavil.
c14.20
∗ For the date of this record, see A. R. E. 1923 II 10. The temple is still called Vyāghra-pādēśvara or Tiruppulippagavar. The Maṇavil ruler apparently rebuilt an ancient temple and re-engraved the older inscriptions of the temple on its new walls.
c14.21
(6) 473 of 1919 - (Grantha - verse) - Kāñcīpuram. Construction by Naralōkavīra of the kitchen-room, a *maṇḍapa* and the *prākāra* walls, and the setting up of a recumbent image of Hari at the Aruḷāla Perumāḷ temple at Kāñcīpuram. He made a gift of a gold pinnacle to this new shrine and made endowments for ten perpetual lamps and for a flower-garden.
c14.22
(7) 120 of 1888 - (Grantha and Tamil * - verse)-Cidambaram (South Arcot) - 31 verses in Sanskrit and 37 in Tamil.—An account of the buildings erected in the Cidambaram temple by Naralōkavīra and his gifts to the god and goddess of the place. Several incidental allusions to his campaigns.
c14.23
(8) 369 of 1921—(Tamil-verse)† - Tiruvadi (South-Arcot)- 25 verses in Tamil. Contents similar to those of No. (7). Buildings and endowments by the same chief at Tiruvadi with incidental allusion to military campaigns.
c14.24
† Text in *Sen Tamil* Vol. 23. pp. 93 ff. and *Perundogai* Nos. 1095-1119.
c14.25
*B - Inscriptions bearing indirectly on the subject.*
c14.26
(9) 97 of 1928 - (Tamil) - Tiruppugalūr (Tanjore)-of year 2 of Parakēsari Vikrama-cōḷadēva. The assembly of Kṣatriyaśikhāmaṇi-caturvēdimaṅgalam met in the Naralōkavīraṇ-maṇḍapa in the temple of Pugalūrdēva for the transaction of some business.
c14.27
(10) 250 of 1925-(Tamil)-Tirukkaḍaiyūr (Tanjore)-of the fourth year of Tribhuvanacakravartin Vikrama-cōḷadēva. Refers to a channel called Aruḷākara-vāykkāl.
c14.28
(11) 265 of 1928-(Tamil)-Nānguṇēri (Tinnevelly). In the days of Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I,
c14.29
∗ Text in *S. I. I.* IV No. 225; also *Perundogai* by Pandit M. Raghava Aiyangar Nos. 1059-94 Tamil verses only.
c14.30
the village of Maruvāykkuṛicci had also the name of Naralōkavīra-nallūr.
c14.31
(12) 98 of 1908-(Tamil)-Tirupputlūr (Ramnad)-of year 3 of Māṛavarman Tribhuvanacakravartin Parākrama Pāṇḍyadēva. The assembly of the place made provision for a Naralōkavīran-śandi.
c14.32
(13) 131 of 1908 - (Tamil) - Tirupputtūr (Ramnad)-of year 12 of the same king. A chieftain Uyyavandān-kaṇḍidēvan alias Gāngēyan made provision for a Naralōkavīran-śandi and the construction of a hall called Naralōkavīran.
c14.33
Name and date.—In the inscriptions, our chieftain is variously called Kūttan, Maṇavīṛkūttan, Arumbākkiḷān, Poṇṇambalakkūttan, Kāḷingarkōn, Kāḷingarāyan, Toṇḍaimān, Aruḷākaran, Naralōkavīran, Mānāvatūra and so on. The long bilingual inscription (No. 7) from Cidambaram mentions that he erected a high stone wall round the temple, and called it Naralōkavīra ; and although the title Aruḷākara is sometimes employed to commemorate him in the names of places, streams etc., still Naralōkavīra figures more often in the names of maṇḍapas, halls and villages called after him, and of the worship instituted for his benefit. Moreover, Naralōkavīra is a far more distinctive title than Kāḷingarkōn or Kāḷingarāya, than even Maṇavīṛkūttan. It seems best, for these reasons, to call our chieftain Naralōkavīra.
c14.34
The earliest reference to him in the Cōḷa inscriptions occurs in the 28th year of Kulōttuṅga I (No. 2 above), and the latest in the sixth year of his successor Vikrama-cōḷa (No. 5); and the other inscriptions which bear no dates or are dated in the reign of Māṛavarman Parākrama Pāṇḍya must be taken to belong to about the same period, A. D. 1098-1124. That a Māṛavarman Parākrama Pāṇḍya was a contemporary of Kulōttuṅga I and that he was probably one of the five Pāṇḍyas whom Kulōttuṅga claims to have defeated in battle is pretty clear from Pāṇḍyan inscriptions.*
c14.35
Of the birth and early life of this chieftain and the steps by which he rose in the military service of the Cālukya-cōḷa emperor Kulōttuṅga I, we have little information. He came of the influential class of landholders called Veḷḷāḷas (Veḷāṅkuḍi mudalāṇ) †, and as he is called Maṇavilār-ēṟu ‡ and Maṇavil-vāḷ-kūttan §, and more generally, Toṇḍaiyar-kōn, ¶ we may assume that he was a native of Maṇavil in Toṇḍaināḍ, or at any rate that he spent a considerable part of his life in that place, either because it was the place of his birth or on account of his having held an important position there. But he is also called Arumbākkiḷān of Maṇavil in No. (4) above, and Arumbākkiḷān Poṟkōyil Toṇḍaimān residing in Maṇavil in No. (5), and Poṟkōyil Toṇḍaimān, a native of Arumbākkam in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-śōlamaṇḍalam in No. (2). These inscriptions make it clear that Arumbākkam was the name of the place of his birth, and that he was connected with Maṇavil by residence and by the possession of certain seigniorial rights implied in his being called ruler or chief of the residents of Maṇavil. It seems quite possible that before the twenty-eighth year of Kulōttuṅga, Naralōkavīra had sufficiently distinguished himself in the king's wars for him to have obtained as his reward an assignment on the revenues from Maṇavil.
c14.36
∗ See my Pāṇḍyan Kingdom pp. 122-3 and No. 515 of 1926 † No. 369 of 1921 v. 18. ‡ ib. v. 11. § v. 3 in Tamil part of 120 of 1888 ¶ 120 of 1888 and 369 of 1921 passim.
c14.37
Before proceeding to a consideration of the campaigns in which Naralōkavīra participated, the buildings he constructed and the charities he endowed, it is necessary to deal with two questions viz: the identification of Maṇavil and Arumbākkam, and the political position of Naralōkavīra.
c14.38
Maṇavil.—This place formed part of the Maṇavir-kōṭṭam, a subdivision of Jayaṅgoṇḍa-śōlamaṇḍalam, which was the name given to Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam rather early in the period of Cōḷa expansion. Of this subdivision, Hultzsch at first observed: ‘Possibly Maṇavir-kōṭṭam is a mere corruption of Maṇayirkōṭṭam, and Maṇayil stands for Maṇ-eyil, ‘mud fort’, which might be a fuller form of Eyil, a village in the South Arcot District, which seems to have given its name to Eyirkōṭṭam.’* When, later, Hultzsch met with the phrase: ‘eyirkōṭṭattu nagaraṅāñcīpuram,’ stating that Kāñcī was a city in the Eyirkōṭṭam, he felt the need for revising his opinion and remarked:† “Eyil, after which the District of Eyirkōṭṭam was called, must be distinct from the distant village of Eyil in the South Arcot District, with which I proposed to identify it on a former occasion. Perhaps the term Eyil, i.e., ‘the fort’, refers to Kāñcīpuram itself.” It should be observed that while this latter identification of Eyil is unexceptionable, it does not appear so easy to follow Hultzsch in his speculations concerning Maṇavil. He puts forward two suggestions neither of which has received any support so far. He says that Maṇ-eyil might be a fuller form of ‘eyil;’ he also says that this fuller form might yield ‘Maṇayil’ and ‘Maṇavil’. All this seems very risky etymology. Moreover, Eyirkōṭṭam and Maṇaviṟkōṭṭam figure as two separate divisions among the twenty-four kōṭṭams attributed by tradition to Toṇṭaimaṇḍalam.* We have to remember that the ‘kōṭṭam,’ though it comprised further subdivisions called nāḍu, was rather a small administrative division. The only satisfactory method of identifying these divisions is to undertake an exhaustive study of the names of subdivisions and villages mentioned in the inscriptions as forming part of the kōṭṭam. With such complete lists before us, we can, with some confidence, proceed to fix the bounds of each kōṭṭam in terms of modern geography; and this because, in spite of a confusing recurrence of some village names in adjacent tracts, a skilful comparison of the data drawn from epigraphs with the present names of villages may be expected to lead to valuable results. Now the nāḍus and villages that appear in Cōḻa inscriptions as parts of Maṇaviṟkōṭṭam so far as I have been able to trace them from the texts of inscriptions are given in the Appendix to this study. It is remarkable that, some of the nāḍus in our list e. g., Puriśai, Pāśāli, Kaṇṟūr and Perumūr, figure also in the traditional list of nāḍus comprising the Maṇavūr-kōṭṭam; Maṇavilnāḍu, however, in which both Maṇavil and Arumbākkam were situated does not figure in it. Nevertheless it seems clear that our Maṇaviṟkōṭṭam must be the same as the Maṇavūr-kōṭṭam of tradition. In one inscription Maṇaviṟkōṭṭam is clearly called Teṇkarai-Maṇaviṟkōṭṭam †, and it must have been, wholly or in part, on the southern bank of some considerable river. The suggestion may be made that Maṇavil and Arumbākkam of the inscriptions are identical with the modern villages of Maṇappākkam and Arumbākkam in the Cheyyār and
c14.39
∗ S. I. I. I. p. 147 A. R. E. 1922 II 61 repeats this, quite innocent of Hultzsch's own doubts expressed later.
c14.40
† S. I. I. II, p. 390.
c14.41
∗ Kanakasabhai - Tamils 1800 years ago. p. 28.
c14.42
† S. I. I. I No. 86.
c14.43
Wālājāpet Taluks of the North Arcot District. These two villages are within five miles of each other and about the same distance to the south of the Pālār.* The village Maṇappākkam is also called Teṇ-maṇappākkam which may be a shorter form of Teṇkarai-Maṇappākkam, and Maṇappākkam may itself be only a variant of Maṇavil or Maṇavūr. Moreover, Purisai which formed part of the Maṇavirkōṭṭam is near these two places, in the Cheyyār Taluk. Though there are other places called Arumbākkam,† none of them satisfies the conditions of the inscriptions under reference, and it seems clear therefore that we should look for Maṇavirkōṭṭam in the North Arcot District, rather than in the South Arcot or in Chingleput District. We may locate it in the Cheyyār and Wālājāpet Taluks on the southern bank of the Pālār and perhaps also, in part, in the Arkonam Taluk.
c14.44
*The Political Position of Naralōkavīra*: In some of Naralōkavīra's inscriptions which give a detailed account of his exploits and of his charities, Nos. 6, 7, and 8 in the list given above, no regnal year of the ruling sovereign is quoted as in the others, and this may raise a doubt that at some time he might have set up independent rule, throwing off his allegiance to his Cōḷa overlord. Moreover these records are undated, and consequently it may be questioned if these inscriptions can be referred to the chieftain of the dated records at all. All such doubts are, however, settled by the following considerations. *First*, the dated and the undated records alike use identical expressions for describing the chieftain e. g., Kāliṅgan, Mānāvatāra, Naralōkavīra, ruler of Maṇavil etc., and it is extremely unlikely that all these titles applied to two different persons who lived at different times. Secondly, these undated inscriptions are all in verse, and we have several instances in Tamil epigraphy of inscriptions in verse which record in a free literary form facts relating to well-known persons mentioned in other contemporary records of a more formal character giving reliable details of time and place. It is quite probable therefore *a priori* that Nos. 6, 7, and 8 are such literary records of the life and achievements of the chieftain whose date and position are more exactly recorded in Nos. 1-5. Lastly, Nos. 7 and 8 contain sufficiently precise references to the contemporary Cōḷa monarch and the subordinate relation of Naralōkavīra to him. Thus in No. 7 we read:
c14.45
∗ Survey map sheets Nos. 57 P/NW and P/NE (scale 1" = 2 mile). † An Arumbākkam 2 miles south of Tirukkōvilūr (South Arcot) - Hultzsch E. I. VII, p.
c14.46
¹³³ Another in the Tiruvallūr Taluk of the Chingleput District.
c14.47
pērolinīr-mōda
alaikinra- vellaiy-Abhayaṇukkē-yāga
malaikinra Toṇḍaiyār-maṇ,
c14.48
that is to say, ‘the chief of the Toṇḍaiyar who fights, to bring under the sole dominion of Abhaya, the earth bounded by the noisy ocean with its dashing waves’. It is well-known that Abhaya was a title of the Cōḷa emperor Kulōttuṅga I which occurs in the *Kaliṅgattupparaṇi* and rarely also in the inscriptions of his reign. Earlier in the same inscription we have:
c14.49
tollai-nīr
maṇmagalait-taṅgōṇ-madi-kkuḍai-kkīḻ virrirutti
uṇmagilun-doṇḍaiyar-kōṇ-uṟṟu,
c14.50
meaning—‘Having installed the Earth Goddess under the moon-like umbrella of his lord,—the Earth (surrounded by) the ancient sea,—the chief of the Toṇḍaiyar was pleased at heart.'* And we read likewise in No. 8 the following:
c14.51
maṇ-muḻudundaṅgōṇ kuḍai-niḻarkīḻt-taṅguvitta vēr-Kūttaṇ eṅgōṇ maṇavilār-ēṟu,
c14.52
that is: "The Kūttaṇ with the lance, who brought the whole earth under the shade of the umbrella of his overlord, is our chief, the chief of the people of Maṇavil." Again, in the very next verse,
c14.53
maṇṇai-ppoḍu-nīkkit-taṅgōṇukkākkiṉāṉ Toṇḍaiyar-kōṇ-āṅgu,
c14.54
'the chief of the Toṇḍaiyar bestowed the earth on his lord after thrusting aside the claims of others (to it).' There seems to be no reason to doubt the identity of the overlord of these three extracts with Abhaya Kulōttuṅga of the first. Moreover, the *Vikramaśōḻaṉ-ulā* mentions a Kāliṅgar-kōṇ (ll. 154-8), and its brief reference to his military successes leave, as will be seen presently, no doubt about his identity with our chieftain.
c14.55
It may be observed in passing that the *ulā* makes an unmistakable distinction between the celebrated Karuṇākara Toṇḍaimāṉ, the conqueror of Kaliṅgam, and our chieftain who has been rather hastily identified with Karuṇākara on account of one of his titles, Aruḷākara, which occurs in the inscriptions noticed above.† That a surname conveying the same idea is expressed in two forms like Karuṇākara and Aruḷākaru which are never confused in the epigraphs, is in itself* sufficient indication that they refer to different persons;
c14.56
∗ Also 'Kūttaṇ-giśayaṅaittu - maṇ-puḻyāṉa naḍakka vaittu' - a clear reference to his subordination to the Cōḻa with the tiger-crest.
c14.57
† See *Vikramaśōḻaṉ-ulā* ll. 134-8. Pandit M. Raghava Aiyangar-*Kaliṅgattup-paraṇiyārāycci* pp 47-54, gives a full discussion of the subject
c14.58
at any rate, it is only by an oversight of the list of chieftains furnished by the *Vikramaśōḻaṉ-ulā* that Karuṇākara Toṇṭaimāṉ could ever have been confused with our Kāliṅgar-kōṉ, Naralōkavīra. The reference in the *ulā*, and the repeated statements in the inscriptions that he fought for increasing the power of his overlord Abhaya make it very clear that Naralōkavīra was a captain of the Cōḻa army in the days of Kulōttuṅga I and his son Vikrama Cōḻa, and that at the end of a very successful military career, he secured Maṇavil in Toṇṭaināṭ as his fief. It may be conjectured also, from his surname Kāliṅgar-kōṉ, that he might at one time have acted as governor of Kaliṅga; but of this we cannot be sure as there are so many Kāliṅgarāyas in the mediaeval records of the Pāṇḍyas and the Cōḻas, and as we do not know how this name came to be applied to them.
c14.59
*The military exploits of Naralōkavīra*:—The nature of our sources makes it very difficult for us to give a chronological account of the career of Naralōkavīra. A full and critical study of the records of the reigns of Kulōttuṅga and Vikrama Cōḻa, such as cannot be undertaken here, may carry us farther than the study merely of the inscriptions of Naralōkavīra. What is offered now is a tentative discussion of the data that can be gathered from the latter and from the *Vikramaśōḻaṉ-ulā*.
c14.60
The lines in the *ulā* are :
c14.61
vēṅgaiyiṉuṅ-gūṭār viḻiñattuṅ-goḷattuṅ-goṅgattu-mōṭā-viraṭṭattu-moṭṭattu-nāṭā-daḍiyeḍattu vevvērarasiriya-virak-koḍiyeḍutta kāliṅgar-kōṉ’ (ll. 154-8),
c14.62
that is to say, ‘Kāliṅgar-kōṉ (chief of Kaliṅgas) who raised the banner of heroism in Vēṅgai (Veṅgi), in
c14.63
hostile Viḷiñam, in Kollam, in Koṅgam, in invincible Iraṭṭa and in Oṭṭa (Oḍra), with the result that different kings were forced to flee these countries without (hope of) returning (to them)’. The slightest acquaintance with the nature of our sources is enough to show that here we have a mixture of history and epic in which history is present in a larger proportion than is usual in such cases. At the same time, we can attach no historical importance to the order in which the countries are named in this passage, as that is obviously determined by metrical exigencies.
c14.64
We shall now examine how far the statements in the *ulā* receive epigraphical confirmation. It may be observed at the outset that these four lines of the *ulā* have more information packed into them than is furnished by all the sixty odd *veṇbās* of the Cidambaram and Tiruvadi inscriptions taken together. Of these inscriptions, the Tiruvadi record contains no reference whatever to any campaign besides that in the Southern country—Pāṇḍya country, and the Cidambaram inscription, while it seems to furnish some details of the southern campaign, makes only vague references to campaigns * against the northern kings (*vaḍamaṉṉar*). Thus the inscriptions now considered contain little which might enable us to control the cryptic references in the *ulā* to the part played by Naralōkavīra in the campaigns in Koṅgam and Iraṭṭam, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa country called Iraṭṭapāḍi in Cōḻa inscriptions. The *ulā* states that this chieftain fought in Vēṅgai (Veṅgi) and Oṭṭa, the Orissa country, and this, as we have just seen, receives some confirmation from the vague statements of the Cidambaram record about the northern kings being defeated and their treasures being captured by Naraḷōkavīra. We also find the name Kāḷingar-kōṇ repeatedly applied to him. In the absence of more precise information, it is not easy to fix the period of Naraḷōkavīra’s activity in Veṅgi and Oḍra. From the accession of Kulōttuṅga I, the Veṅgi and Cōḷa kingdoms were administered as parts of a single empire, and it is quite possible that the campaign referred to here was undertaken during the first war against Kaliṅga that was waged about 1090-1095 A. D. in Kulōttuṅga’s reign.*
c14.65
∗ Ollai-vaḍavēndar selvamelām vāṅga vil-vāṅgum teṉṉar malaimay-kareṉai-vaḍumaṉṉar maṟakkulam uṇar selvameḻāṅgoṇḍu.
c14.66
Of the fighting in the south more details are forthcoming. The ulā specifies Viḷiñam and Kollam as the places round which the campaign centred. And the inscriptions confirm this to a remarkable extent. According to these, the campaign was undertaken against the Pāṇḍyas and the Cēras. By the time of Kulōttuṅga’s accession to the Cōḷa throne, these two powers had been politically subject to the Cōḷa rulers for nearly a century. They never reconciled themselves, however, to the Cōḷa yoke and must have found occasion in the confusion that preceded Kulōttuṅga’s accession to rise against the Cōḷa power. In any event, we know from Kulōttuṅga’s inscriptions that he led a great expedition to the south, defeated five Pāṇḍya kings, captured the fortress of Kōṭṭār, and, after a great deal of fighting, settled a number of military colonies in the country restored to subjection to the Cōḷa power. One of these Pāṇḍya kings was a Māṟavarman Parākrama Pāṇḍya.† As there are two inscriptions of
c14.67
∗ S. I. I III 72. Pandit M. Rāghava Aiyaṅgar op. cit. p.
c14.68
⁵¹ The pandit's suggestion that he might have inherited the title Kāḷingarāya seems to discount altogether the data from the ulā on Veṅgi and Oḍra.
c14.69
† See my Pāṇḍyan Kingdom, p.
c14.70
¹²³ There is no foundation for the view that 'Naraḷōkavīra' of the Parākrama Pāṇḍya inscriptions was a surname of the Pāṇḍya king, or that it indicates any person different from our chieftain. Contra. A. R. E. 1921-22 II. 61.
c14.71
Parākrama Pāṇḍya, Nos. 12 and 13 (*ante*), which refer to a Naralōkavīraṇśandi and a hall called Naralōka-vīraṇ, it is probable that Parākrama Pāṇḍya was met in battle and defeated by our chieftain who is said to have compelled the Pāṇḍyas to take refuge in the mountain with their women-folk :
c14.72
teṇṇavartam
pūvēṟu vār-kuḻalōṟum poruppēṟa
mā-vēṟu Toṇṭaiyār-maṇ.
c14.73
He is also said to have destroyed Kollam (*Kollam-aḻivukaṇṭāṉ*) after capturing the western hill-country of the Pāṇḍya (*teṇṇar kuṭamalai-nāṭerindu*). We are also told that Vēṇāṭu (South Travancore) was the source of trouble, and that it was ravaged with fire and sword by Naralōkavīra :
c14.74
pūsal
viḷaivitta vēṇāṭum veṟpaṇaittuṉ-jeṇdī
vaḷaivittāṉ Toṇṭaiyār-maṇ.
c14.75
He is also said to have subdued the *cāvērs* of the Pāṇḍya who were proud of their strength :
c14.76
teṇṇāṭan *cāvēṟṟin-ṟin* śerukkai
yaṇṟamaittāṉ Toṇṭaiyar kōṇ-āṅgu.
c14.77
The *cāvērs* were a class of specially trained warriors who braved death cheerfully;* it has been supposed that this class of warriors was confined to the Malabar country. The mention in the Tiruvadi inscription of the *cāvērs* of the Pāṇḍya is a very interesting fact. This fact renders it easier for us to understand the Tamil *praśasti* of Kulōttuṅga which narrates the war with the *cāvērs* that, preceded the colonisation of Kōṭṭār and other places in the Pāṇḍya country. Another interesting fact to which special attention may be drawn is the prominent part of the cavalry implied in the repeated reference to horses in the inscriptions. One of the extracts from the Cidambaram inscription given above (teṇṇavartam pūvēru etc.) says that when Toṇḍaiyarkōṇ got up on his steed, the Pāṇḍya got up on the mountain (fled for refuge) with his women. Again the military colonists whom Kulōttuṅga settled in the Pāṇḍya country, evidently at the end of the campaign here noticed, are described as chiefs of his cavalry forces (mā-vēriya-taṇ varūdinit-talaivarai). It seems such a pity that we have no reliable means of ascertaining the nature and equipment of the Cōḷa army at the time and its methods of warfare.
c14.78
It is thus clear that, saving some uncertain services in Veṅgi and Orissa, the chief claim of Naralōkavīra to recognition at his king's hands lay in his expedition into the Pāṇḍya country and the subjugation of the rebellious Vēṇād. It is instructive to compare the position of Karuṇākara Toṇḍaimāṉ in the Kaliṅga campaign with that of Naralōkavīra in the subjugation of the south, and though no special eulogy like the Kaliṅgattup-paraṇi was evoked by his achievement, * still we can see from the length and eloquence of the two inscriptions in Cidambaram and Tiruvadi and from the extent and variety of his charitable endowments and constructions (which we proceed next to consider in detail), that he must have occupied a prominent place in the Cōḷa court and held a rank not much below that of the conqueror of Kaliṅgam. The manner in which he is mentioned in the Vikramaśōḻan-ulā among those who followed Vikrama in his ulā seems to confirm this.
c14.79
∗ See however the Paraṇi III 21.
c14.80
NARALOKAVĪRA
c14.81
Naraḷōkavīra's religious and charitable works :—The great position and influence in the state that Naraḷōkavīra had built for himself by distinguished military service was used by him for the furtherance of the arts of peace. The temple was in those days the accredited centre not merely of religious devotion but of learning, culture and the arts. And, among others, the celebrated Śiva temples of Cidambaram and Tiruvadi (S. Arcot) became the spheres of the public benefactions of Naraḷōkavīra, and the inscriptions in these places (Nos. 7 and 8 above) give very interesting and trustworthy accounts of the buildings he erected and the endowments he made in these towns. The title Porkōyil Toṇḍaimāṉ and the surnames Nartaka and Sabhānar-taka often applied to him in these inscriptions furnish clear proof of his deep devotion to Naṭarāja, the Dancing Śiva. The statements in the Cidambaram inscription relating to his charitable works may be summed up as follows.
c14.82
This record as we have seen comprises two halves—the first of 31 Sanskrit verses and the second of about thirty-six veṇbās in Tamil, * which in many instances, repeat and confirm the statements found in the Sanskrit verses.
c14.83
To follow the order adopted in the Sanskrit portion, we are told that Naraḷōkavīra set up innumerable street-lights (vīthidīpa) (st. 2; v. 1076) and made arrangements for watering the streets on festive occasions (st. 3). He created a sacred garden (nandavana) which was filled with the bustle of the gods that came to witness the dance of Śiva and in which flourished a hundred thousand areca-palms besprinkled with Ganges water scattered by the matted hair on the head of Śiva during his dance. (st. 4-5 and vv. 1089 and 1090). He erected a *maṇḍapa* near the sea and opened a broad road to it for the *tīrthayātrā* in the month of Māśi (st. 6 and v. 1091), and near that *maṇḍapa* he made a large tank of fresh water with a large banyan tree on its bank (st. 7). He constructed round the temple a great wall called Naralōkavīra (after him) from which there rose two tall towers (*gōpurayuga*) reaching out to the sky (st. 8 and 9). He whom the poets call Aruḷākara justified the name by constructing a hall with a hundred pillars where Paśupati, seeing that it was a place meet for his dance, disported himself with his beloved (st. 10, v. 1073). Round the sacred tank in the temple he built a flight of stone steps which looked like the path by which his fame descended to the nether world (st. 11, v. 1075). On either side of the golden gateway on the south (of the temple) he set up *maṅgaḷadīpas* which dispelled from his subjects the shadows of earthly life (st. 12). The priests responsible for worship in the temple were the recipients of rich endowments from him; further, he erected a fine hall for the constant recitation of the *Dēvāram* of Gñānasambanda * (st. 13, and v. 1072). He covered the great Sabhā (*mahatīm sabhām, pērambalam*) with copper (st. 14 and v. 1063). He constructed a vehicle with a bull mounted on it, and on this vehicle the god was taken in procession during *bhikṣāṭana yātras*. (st. 15). A bugle inlaid with
c14.84
∗ The published text in S. I. I. IV. No. 225 is defective at some points. A literal translation of this record cannot be attempted without a more critical edition of the text. For the Tamil part I follow Pt. Raghava Aiyangar's text accepting his conjectural emendations wherever they are prima facie correct. The Veṇbā (v) numbers quoted are those of the Peṟuntogai.
c14.85
∗ *Kumāra-stōtra-pārāyaṇa* of the Sanskrit *śloka* adopts the Sanskrit form of the name Ajuḍuya-piḷḷaiyār for Sambanda (See st. 26 and 27). It may also be noted that while the Sanskrit has *kāñcanam maṇḍapam*, v. 1072 has only *maṇḍapam* which, if it refers to the same structure, as I think it does, shows that we are not to understand literally the many references to golden halls.
c14.86
gold intended to announce the arrival of Dēvadēva (God of gods) was presented by him to the temple (st. 16, v. 1066). Ten nityadīpas of fragrant camphor (st. 20, v. 1067), a golden water-pot (st. 21, v. 1065), an image of Sambanda (st. 26) together with a large number of precious jewels (st. 18, 24) and arrangements for annual abhiṣēkas in the different shrines in the temple (st. 22, 25 and v. 1071) formed part of Naralōkavīra's endowments to the temple of Naṭarāja. A prākāra and a maṇḍapa and a high outer wall of stone were erected for the shrine of the goddess Pārvatī whose image was clad in a splendid robe and adorned from head to foot with fine jewels befitting the dancing hall of her lord (sva-pati-naṭanāsthāna-yōgyam) (st. 28-30 vv. 1077, 1078, 1080). Lastly, Naralōkavīra gave a perpetual endowment for the daily supply of oil and milk for children to signify the universal motherhood of the goddess (st. 31). The Tamil part adds a few items to this long list of Naralōkavīra's charities in Cidambaram; of these the most noteworthy are the engraving on copper-plates of the whole of the Dēvāram as it was sung by the three hymnists (v. 1088) and the construction of a stone sluice to a large irrigation tank in the neighbourhood of Cidambaram (v. 1094).
c14.87
It must be noticed here that from the inscriptions of Vikrama Cōḷa dating from the eleventh year of his reign (c. 1128-9 A. D.), we learn that that monarch takes credit to himself for many things in the temple of Naṭarāja which bear a close resemblance to what Naralōkavīra is reported to have done. Not only are the constructions and endowments briefly mentioned in Vikrama Cōḷa's inscription similar to those in the record analysed above, but that king is said to have undertaken this extensive reconstruction of the great temple from funds provided out of tributes collected by him from subject kings. It seems hardly possible that the undated Cidambaram record of Naralōkavīra and the inscriptions of Vikrama Cōḻa, so similar in their contents, refer to two different sets of operations unrelated to each other. We may therefore assume that the later years of Naralōkavīra’s life were spent by him in assisting his sovereign in carrying out the programme of religious works he had made for himself. Nothing was more natural in those days than that an old warrior who, in his younger days had seen a great deal of fighting in distant countries, should, in the evening of his life, find congenial occupation, still in the service of his king and country, in renovating and beautifying holy places of ancient renown. And perhaps it is proof alike of the mutual trust between the king and his feudatory, and of the impersonal attitude which characterised their action in the service of God, that their works are reported in the inscriptions in a manner calculated to conceal from our view their relative shares in the great task.
c14.88
To this day one of the enclosing walls of the Cidambaram temple is called *Vikramaśōḻan-tirumāḻigai*, the name employed for it in Vikrama’s inscription (*śemboṉṉambalam-śūḻ-tirumāḻigaiyum*). It is not possible to say if the reference to the entire *Dēvāram* being engraved on copper-plates is a fact, or only a mere repetition of an old convention in relation to such matters. The *Sūtras* of the *Iraiyaṉār-Kaḷaviyal* are also supposed to have been written on copper-plates in the first instance by their divine author. Allowing, however, for all the hyperbole characteristic of such eulogies, we can still hardly fail to recognise that the first ten years or so of the reign of Vikrama Cōḻa saw extensive improvements and reconstructions in the
c14.89
greatest centre of Śaivism in South India, and that our chieftain had an important share in them.
c14.90
There is one circumstance which renders this surmise about Naralōkavīra’s relation to Vikrama Cōḷa’s works in Cidambaram the more probable. This chieftain had by the time of Vikrama’s accession added to his distinction in the army a considerable experience in the construction and endowment of temples and maṇḍapas. In the life-time of Kulōttuṅga, he built a stone temple of good size to Vyāghrapadēśvara at Siddhaliṅgamadam;* he also constructed a maṇḍapa and prākāra walls and set up a recumbent image of Hari in Kāñcīpuram.† And, though we cannot be quite sure of it, it is not improbable that before he turned to Cidambaram, he completed the constructions at Tiruvadi which included a maṇḍapa and a māḷigai, a hall with a hundred-pillars, a broad procession-path (tiruccuṟṟu), a dancing hall and other structures very similar to those erected at Cidambaram. In many ways then Naralōkavīra must have appeared to Vikrama Cōḷa as the person most fitted to carry ont the great enterprise at Cidambaram which was to mark his intense devotion to his tutelary deity (taṉ kuluṉāyakaṉ).
c14.91
We have followed the life and work of Naralōkavīra with the clear testimony of contemporary inscriptions and literature. There are many gaps in the story, and obviously we cannot accept everything that is stated in the inscriptions as literally true. It is quite possible that when more texts of inscriptions from the south (Madura, Tinnevelly, Travancore) are published or fresh inscriptions copied, we may get more light on the life and times of this chieftain which will enable us to fill some of the gaps in our story. But the evidence at hand is quite definite on the services rendered by Naralōkavīra to Kulōttuṅga I and his son and successor Vikrama Cōḻa, and on the position he held among the official nobility of the land. Though he fought in several campaigns, his greatest distinction was doubtless his success in the southern campaign of Kulōttuṅga which resulted in the establishment of military colonies on the main road through the Pāṇḍya country to Koṭṭār and Cape Comorin. We have seen that he was connected in some special manner with Maṇavil; most likely he was granted by the king an assignment of the revenues due from the place. Once indeed he is called *mā-Mayilai-ttoṇḍaiyar-kōṉ kūttaṉ* (v. 1064); but this, I think, is only in obedience to a poetic convention which treated Mayilai (Mylapore) as one of the beauty-spots of the Toṇḍaināḍ to which Naralōkavīra belonged. The religious constructions and charities at Kāñcīpuram, Tiruvadi, Siddhaliṅgamaḍa, Tribhuvani, Cidambaram and other places undoubtedly gave him opportunities for the encouragement of artisans of various types. Masons and architects, jewellers and gardeners, weavers and musicians must have been employed by him in work suited to their qualifications and tastes. And one may add that the literary men whom he patronised, like the composers of the Sanskrit verses and the Tamil *veṇbas* of the Cidambaram and Tiruvadi inscriptions, on which this study is so largely based, were not mere versifiers, but could lay some claim to real poetic talent.
c14.92
∗ Nos. 367 and 369 of 1909 (1 an 1 3 above). † 473 of 1919 (6 above).