|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
to the Gaṅga family and gives him a number of birudas. The donatrix[1] is said to have been staying
at Abhinava-Vārāṇavāsi or Abhinava-Vārāṇasī. The second inscription, written in continuation
of the previous one, is dated in the twentieth regnal year of the Chōḷa king Rājarāja III (1216-46
A.C.), Monday, Āḍi 12, Saptamī, Aśvati,[2] and records the gift of 128 cows and 4 bulls by
Kaliṅgēśvara Aniyaṅkabhīmadēva Rāhutta (i.e., Anaṅgabhīma III Rāuta) for four perpetual lamps
in the temple. It is suggested that the Śrīraṅgam inscription points to the conquest of the Tamil
country as far south as the Tanjore-Tiruchirappalli region by the Oṭṭas, who are taken to be the
same as the Oḍḍiyas or Oriyas, about 1224 A.C. and to the consequent “dislocation in temple worship
at Śrīraṅgam”. The above contention is sought to be supported by the Kāñchīpuram inscriptions
which are believed to prove the presence of the Gaṅga king Anaṅgabhīma III Rāhuttarāya alias
Anantavarman[3], together with his queen Sōmaladēvī, at Abhinava-Vārāṇasī taken to be the
same as Kāñchīpuram.
Now the above interpretation of the Śrīraṅgam and Kāñchīpuram inscriptions is open to several
objections. In the first place, if the Gaṅga king Anaṅgabhīma III Anantavarman’s conquests
really extended as far as Tanjore and Tiruchirappalli in the south and if he was present in that
connection at Kāñchīpuram, the Kāñchīpuram inscription (No. 445 of 1919 referred to above) must
have been dated in his own reckoning and certainly not in that of the Chōḷa king Rājarāja III.
The dating of this inscription shows beyond doubt that the acknowledged king of the area including
Kāñchīpuram was the Chōḷa monarch and not the Gaṅga emperor.[4] Secondly, as indicated above,
Gaṅga Anaṅgabhīma III was a saintly Vaishaṇva, so much so that even one of his Śaiva officers
mentioned him as Bhagavat. It is therefore impossible to believe that, when he was himself present
in the Tamil country, there could have been dislocation in the worship at the Śrīraṅgam temple
which is one of the greatest Vaishṇava shrines renowned throughout India. Thirdly, Mr. Venkatasubba Ayyar seems to be right in taking the word Oṭṭar occurring in the Śrīraṅgam inscription
to mean “ those who have undertaken to do a thing or given an agreement (to the temple) ” and
in suggesting that it does not stand for the Oḍḍas (Oriyas).[5] There seems therefore to be no reference to a confusion caused by a foreign invasion in the Śrīraṅgam inscription.[6] Fourthly, if
it is believed that the Gaṅga king conquered the Tamil country before 1225 A.C. and was holding
___________________________________________________
[1] Careful examination of the impressions of the inscription shows that it was Sōmaladēvī who was staying at
Abhinava-Vārāṇavāsi (Abhinava-Vārāṇasī) while making the grant in question (Abhinava-Vārāṇavāsiyil irundu).
[2] Āḍi 12, Saptamī, Aśvati (Aśvinī) in the twentieth regnal year of Rājarāja III would correspond to the 8th
July 1235 A.C. But the week-day was Sunday and not Monday as given in the record.
[3] Inscriptions show that most of the successors of Anantavarman Chōḍagaṅga, if not all of them, assumed
Anantavarman as a secondary name. See SII, Vol. V, Nos. 1321-22, 1325-27, 1333-34 for Kāmārṇava ; Nos. 1330-31, 1336, 1340-41 for Rāghava ; Nos. 1270, 1329 for Rājarāja II ; Nos. 1273, 1317 for Rājarāja III ; Nos. 1283, 1290
for Anaṅgabhīma III ; Nos. 1272, 1291 for Narasiṁha I ; No. 1151, and ibid., Vol. VI, Nos. 928, 941, 957, 982, 1118,
1140 for Narasiṁha II ; Vol. VI, Nos. 1000, 1002 for Bhānu II.
[4] Both Dr. Venkataramanayya and Dr. Mahalingam appear to be conscious of this difficulty ; but their attempts
to explain it away are quite unconvincing. Dr. Venkataramanayya speaks in this connection only about No. 444
of 1919, in which the name of the Chōḷa king finds no mention, and totally ignores No. 445 of 1919 which is dated in
the 20th regnal year of Chōḷa Rājarāja III. Dr. Mahalingam on the other hand says, “ Probably this visit of the
Gaṅga king with his wife to Kāñchī had no political significance. Obviously they undertook only a pilgrimage tour
to the city ”. It is no doubt impossible to reconcile this view with the theory regarding “ a Gaṅga invasion of the
Tamil country as far as Śrīraṅgam near modern Trichinopoly by Anaṅgabhīma in the early years of the reign of the
Chōḷa king Rājarāja III ”.
[5] Above, Vol. XXVII, p. 193, note 4.
[6] Mr. N. Lakshminarayan Rao, who has carefully examained the Śrīraṅgam inscription, is also convinced that
it contains no reference to the Oriyas. But even if the word Oṭṭar is taken in the sense of the Oriyas, their presence
at Śrīraṅgam should better be explained in a different way especially in view of the fact that the date of the Śrīraṅgam inscription is considerably earlier than those of the Kāñchīpuram inscriptions. It is difficult to believe
that the Oriyas were ousted from Śrīraṅgam by 1225 A.C. but were holding Kāñchīpuram as late as 1230 A.C.
|
