Studies in Cola History and Administration c7.95

c7.95

It has been held that the father of Karikāla ‡ died as a crown prince—a view based entirely on his name Iḷanjētceṇṇi. Karikāla’s troubles in early life, his imprisonment by his enemies and his heroic escape and even the great battle of Veṇṇi are often ascribed to his father’s early death. Dr. S. K. Aiyaṅgar observes that there are a number of Karikāla’s predecessors mentioned in the Śaṅgam works; “but in our present state of knowledge of these it would be hazardous to attempt arranging them on any scheme, either genealogical or successional.”¶ Yet he says immediately after this: “Karikāla’s grandfather would appear to be Vērpahṟaḍakkai Peruṇaṟkkiḷḷi”; and on this assumption he writes: “The father died a prince and the grandfather fell in battle and so the grandson was left, when quite a young boy, heir to the throne of a kingdom not in the enjoyment of peace. Nor were causes wanting for civil dissensions. Young Karikāla found himself a fugitive at Karūr after the disastrous battle in which his grandfather fell along with his Cēra enemy. It was from here that he was fetched to ascend the throne by the state elephant from Kaḷumalam (Shiyali)”. Here we have a typical example of the blending of information drawn from history and legend that has played a conspicuous part in the treatment of the reign of this early Cōḷa king. It is difficult to choose between the two assumptions quoted from two writers that Vērpaḥṛadakkai-pperunarkkiḷḷi* was the son of Karikāla and that he was his grandfather. The fact is that his proximity to Karikāla in point of time is attested by the poet Kaḷāttalaiyār having composed songs both about him and the Cēra contemporary of Karikāla who committed suicide in expiation of his cowardice at Veṇṇi. If we accept the suggestion that Perunarkkiḷḷi was of the generation after Karikāla, we have also to accept that the Cōḷa war of the Cēras, of which we have one phase in the battle of Veṇṇi in Karikāla’s reign, was continued in later times; and also that Śeṅguṭṭuvaṇ the son of the opponent of Perunarkkiḷḷi was later than Karikāla by a period of not less than half a century, and perhaps more. If, on the other hand, following Dr. S. K. Aiyangar’s view, we take Perunarkkiḷḷi to be earlier than Karikāla, we are led naturally to the conclusion that Karikāla was much nearer in point of time to Śeṅguṭṭuvaṇ and perhaps his contemporary. But then we get into some new difficulties on