Annual Reports

INTRODUCTION

of the present charter is important as it furnishes some hitherto unknown facts pertaining to Chōḷa history. For instance, we learn from it for the first time that among the kings conquered by Parāntaka I, there was one Pallava ruler. Hitherto it was believed that Āditya I, the father of Parāntaka I, had liquidated the Pallava power by defeating Pallava Aparājita and annexing his kingdom. The mention of a Pallava chief in this charter as a foe of Parāntaka as well would indicate that either the latter helped his father in defeating the Pallava ruler or that the Pallava resistance continued even up to the time of Parāntaka I who had to deal the final blow to that power, probably by overthrowing Pallava Nṛipatuṅgavarman in or about 910-11 A. C. Of Parāntaka II (Sundara-Chōḷa), the praśasti states that he made the powerful Vīra-Pāṇḍya flee to the Sahya mountains. That Vīra-Paṇḍya was killed by Āditya II, son of Parāntaka II, is well known. The facts revealed by the present account seem therefore to show that both the father and the son fought a common foe. Of Rājarāja I, son of Parāntaka II, we are told, perhaps for the first time, that among his numerous adversaries, there was a Bāṇa chief who was defeated and a certain Bhōgadēva whose head was cut off. What necessitated Rājarāja I to fight the Bāṇas who had already been completely subjugated by Parāntaka I several decades earlier is not known. There were a few Bāṇa Chiefs at this period who figured independently without mentioning any overlord. One of them was Aggapa whose inscription dated Śaka 930 (= 1008 A. C.) is found at Sannamūru in the Podili taluk, Nellore District. whether it was these Bāṇas of the Telugu country with whom Rājarāja I had to wage a war is not certain. The identity of Bhōgadēva also remains doubtful. It is a common name among the chiefs of the Telugu-Chōḍa family. Rājarāja is known to have defeated the Telugu-Chōḷa chief Bhīma and perhaps killed him too. But Chōḍa-Bhīma is not known to have had the surname Bhōgadēva and therefore it is by no means certain if the two were one and the same.

  Of Rajendra-Chōḷa I, the donor of the grant, the first notable event of the reign recorded is that the king of Kāmbōja sent his chariot as a present to the Chōḷa monarch in order to win the latter’s friendship and thereby save his own kingdom. Apparently Kāmbōja here stands for Cambodia in the Far East and not Kāmbhōja in the north-west of India as the Chōḷas are not known to have ever gone so far to the north-west. As the Chōḷa king’s expedition to Kaṭāha, i.e., Kedah in the Malay Peninsula, is referred to further in the present account, the Kāmbōja ruler figuring here is possibly different from the Śailēndra king of Ka¬ṭāha. Another noteworthy fact related is that Rājēndra-Chōḷa proceeded against Mānyakhēṭa in order to fulfil his father’s vow that he would have no respite until he captured that city. Obviously Rājarāja I died without realising his aim which his son Rājēndra did succeed in achieving, for the praśasti says that he burnt down the city. The succeeding verses describe the king’s well-known conquests of Siṁhaḷa, Kaḍāha and Kēraḷa as well as his Gangetic expedition.

   A noteworthy fact of the Sanskrit section is that although it cities the 8th regnal year of the king (= 1020 A. C.), as does the Tamil portion of the record, it mentions, like the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu and the Leiden plates, some of his conquests which he must have achieved much later than the 8th year of his reign, as for instance, his Gangetic expedition and the Kaṭāha campaign (c. 1025 A.C.). It would therefore appear that, as in the case of the Leiden and the Tiruvālaṅgaḍu plates, the Sanskrit portion of the grant was composed much later and added on to the deed in Tamil.

   After the eulogy follows the statement that while camping at Vyāghrāgrahāra, i.e., Chidambaram, the king made a gift of Tribhuvanamahādēvi-agrahāra, named after his royal mother, and made up of a number of villages and situated in Vīrachōḷa-vaḷarāshṭra, to a thousand and eighty Brāhmaṇas. The vijñapti of the record was the king’s minister Jananātha. The chief administrative head of the agrahāra granted was Nārāyaṇa of Kṛishṇapura who is described as a very learned Brāhamaṇa, and a yajvan. The composer of the praśasti was Nārāyaṇa, son of Śaṅkarārya, a resident of Pārśvagrāma. As already remarked, Nārāyaṇa was the composer of the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates also. The Sanskrit section concludes with the mention of the engravers Tribhuvanamahādēvī-Mahāchārya and Rājēndrasiṁha-Pērācharya.