South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

EIGHT INSCRIPTIONS OF KADAVARAYA CHIEFS

Inscription No. I indicates that Vēṇāvuḍaiyān vanquished the Kākatīyas in their own dominion, implying that he had invaded their territory. The Kākatīya contemporary of Kōpperuñjiṅga was Gaṇapati, who in 12491 was in possession of Kāñchī. In his endeavour to obtain the place, he must have found himself in conflict with the Kāḍava Peruñjiṅga. In about A. D. 1258, Rudrāmbā, the only daughter of Gaṇapati, became the queen of the Kākatīya dominion, as there was no male heir to the throne. In was just before A. D. 1262, the date of the Drākshārāma epigraph, probably in A. D. 1260-1, that the forces of Peruñjiṅga, probably under the command of his valiant son Vēṇāvuḍaiyān, invaded the territory of the Telugus. His Drākshārāma and Tripurāntakam inscriptions are evidences of the reality of the conquests of the Pallava in the north.

Here may be considered the attempts of the Pāṇḍya king. Jaṭāvarman Sundara-Pāṇḍya is described in his inscriptions as the thunderbolt to the mountain, viz. the Chōḷa race (Rājārāja III), the dispeller of the Karnāṭa king (i.e., Vīra-Śōmēśvara), the fever to the elephant Kāṭhaka king, the jungle fire to the forest Gaṇḍagōpāla, the lion to the deer Gaṇapati (i.e., the Kākatīya king), who was the lord of Kāñchī.^[2] It is also on record that Jaṭāvarman Sundara-Pāṇḍya I laid siege to Śēndamaṅgalm, fought many a fierce battle which made the Pallava tremble, and finally took the country together with immense wealth and numberless elephants and horses and bestowed it on Peruñjiṅga. One could easily see that the detailing of the achievements in the Tiruvaṇṇāmalai record (Inscription No. I) and in the records of Sundara-Pāṇḍya has much in common. It might be said that the achievements which Sundara-Pāṇḍya claims over the Kāṭhaka, Gaṇapati and others of the north, must have been effected by the combined forces of Sundara-Pāṇḍya and Pallava Peruñjiṅga, for these two distinguished contemporaries claim almost the same conquests.

Peruñjiṅga’s relationship with the Pāṇḍya king seems to have been one of continued friendship. He seems to have occupied a subordinate position under the Pāṇḍya. There are records which declare that the Pallava king had sent tributes to the Pāṇḍya overlord^[3] and that the latter had received them. His Pāṇḍya overlords were Jaṭāvarman Sundara-Pāṇḍya I (A.D. 1251-72)^[4] and his coregent^[5] Jaṭāvarman Vīra-Pāṇḍya (A. D. 1254-75). In the keenly contested battle at Śēndamaṅgalam, the Pallava Peruñjiṅga, who trembled at the fierceness of the fight, was bestowed, in the end of the battle, the conquered kingdom. Jaṭāvarman (Vīra-Pāṇḍya claims to have performed the anointment of heroes at Perumbarrappuliyūr (i.e., Chidambaram) and this place was mostly under Kōpperuñjiṅga. The performance of the anointment of heroes at that place by the Pāṇḍya may indicate the subordination of the Kāḍava.

There are three inscriptions at Tiruvaṇṇāmalai dated in the regnal years 30, 31 and 32 of Rājarāja III, corresponding to A.D. 1246, 1247 and 1248.^[6] In the same place there are found inscriptions dated in Kōpperuñjiṅga’s reign from the 2nd year onwards which also correspond to A. D. 1246, 1247, 1248, 1250, etc.^[7] So then it happens that that place was under the rule of both Rājarāja III and Peruñjiṅga from A.D. 1246. And by the evidence of the available inscriptions it is clear that while the Chōḷa hold over the place was lost in about A.D. 1248, Peruñjiṅga continued to possess it. Another fact to be noted is that the initial year of Rājēṇdra-Chōḷa III, the son of Rājarāja III, was A. D. 1246-7. All the available pieces of evidence seem to suggest that Rājarāja III and Peruñjiṅga were on amicable terms from A.D. 1243.

_______________________________

^[1] No. of 26 1890.
^[2] See K. V. S. Aiyer, Historical Sketches of Ancient Dekhan, p. 165 f.
^[3] No. 192 of 1914 and Pudukotta Inscriptions, No. 370.
^[4] The date of his accession is fixed to have been between April 20 and 28, A.D. 1251 (above, Vol. IX, p. 227).
^[5] See K. V. S. Aiyer, op. cit. p. 169.
^[6] Nos. 503, 510, and 511 of 1902.
^[7] Nos. 460, 465, 500, and 513 of 1902.