North Indian Inscriptions

TIRUKKALUKKUNRAM INSCRIPTIONS.

in which the grants dated during the reign of Parântaka I. are recorded. Râjarâdêva was one of the most powerful of the Chôḷa kings, as is shown by the fact that his inscriptions are found on the walls of almost every ancient temple in the Tamiḷ country. Consequently, it is very improbable that Kannaradêva’s invasion took place during his reign. Again, the three inscriptions of Parântaka I. found in a Pallava temple at Kâñchîpuram,¹ which was Pallava capital, and the above published inscription from Tirukkalukkunram, which must also have been situated in the Pallava territory, show either that Parântaka conquered the Pallavas himself, or, if the conquest had been effected by one of his predecessors, that he continued to keep them under subjection. The two subjoined inscriptions say that Kannara took Kachchi and Tañjai, and imply that he enjoyed undisturbed possession of the country for a considerable length of time ; for, otherwise grants would not have been issued in his name. It is very unlikely that a king like Parântaka, whose military resources were enough to keep the Pallavas under subjection and that at the same time to conquer the Pâṇḍya and other kings, would have allowed a town like Tañjai, situated as it is in the heart of the Chôḷa country, to be occupied by a victorious invader. Thus palæographical and historical considerations combine together in fixing the period of these grants between the death of Parântaka I. and the accession of Râjarâjadêva. This period was occupied, according to the large Leyden grant, by the reigns of six Chôḷa kings.² Of the military achievements of none of them has it much to say.

>

The Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi leaves out these six kings entirely in the account which it gives of the ancestors of the reigning king Kulôttuṅga I.,³ and inscriptions dted during their reigns are conspicuous by their absence even in the heart of the Chôḷa country. Of course, some of those which begin either with kô Râjakêsarivarman or kô Parakṛsarivarman alone, may have to be referred to the reigns of two or more of these kings. But the fact that these contain no historical introduction is significant, and would imply that their military achievements were not worthy of record. These considerations naturally lead to the inference that, during the reigns of these six kings, the Chôḷas occupied quite an inferior position and were probably feudatories of some foreign king. It was just during this period that the invasion and the considerably long occupation of the Chôḷa dominions by Kannaradêva was possible. Not long after the death of Parântaka I., Bûtuga, a Gaṅga feudatory of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Kṛishṇa III. alias Kannaradêva, fought a battle at Takkôla,— a place which has not yet been identified,— against the Chôḷa king Râjâditya, who was defeated and killed in the battle. Commenting on the unreliable nature of most of the statements made in the spurious Sûḍi plates of Bûtuga, Dr. Fleet remarks that there are reference to two real historical events in the inscription.⁴ There is, I think, a third historical event when they say that, after defeating the Chôḷa king Râjâditya, the Gaṅga king Bûtuga, under order from Kṛishṇa III., besieged Tañjâpurî, i.e. Tanjore.⁵ As has been pointed out above, the Chôḷa power was very weak after the death of Parântaka I., and nothing could stand in the way of the victor at Takkôla proceeding straight to Tanjore, which appears to have been the Chôḷa capital during the time of Râjâditya’s successor Gaṇḍarâdityavarman,⁶ and capturing it. It was also stated that palæographical considerations point to the interval between the death of the Chôḷa king Parântaka I. and the accession of Râjarâjadêva as the approximate period of the subjoined inscriptions, which are dated during the reign of Kannaradêva ; that, about the commencement of this interval, the Râshṭrakûṭa king Kṛishṇa III.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ See note 3, p. 280 above.
......² These were Râjâditya, Gaṇḍarâdityavarman, Ariṁjaya, Parântaka II., Âditya-Karikâla and Madhurântaka.
The fact that Âduitya-Karikâla preceded Madhurântaka, shows that the succession was disputed after the death of Parântaka II. ; South-Indian Inscriptions, Vol. p. 112.
......³ The next event that is mentioned after the conquest of Ceylon and Madhurâ, which took place during the reign of Parântaka I., is the capture of Udagai, which occurred during the reign of Râgarâjadêva ; see canto viii. verses 23 and 24.
......⁴ See p. 175 above.
......⁵ See p. 183 above.
......⁶ See note 1, p. 28 above.