Saturday, October 6, 2018

Ramanuja is a history – 8 (The myth of the death of Adhirajendra)

Two Chola kings, Adhirajendra and Rajamahendra – both contemporaries of Ramanuja mysteriously vanished suddenly from the pages of history – if we construct history with the information collected only from epigraphy. Of them Adhirajendra’s latest inscription dated at his 3rd regnal year corresponds to CE 1071. From the history of Ramanuja we identify him as Krimikanṭha Chola who persecuted Ramanuja. The other one, Rajamahendra Chola can be identified as having Vaishnavite leanings, evidenced from the name of a street after him in Srirangam and a donation of gem studded covering to the snake hood of Lord Ranganatha at Srirangam. These two kings of the same dynasty known for two different stances impacting a particular sect had gone missing suddenly from epigraphy. This had led to a lot of speculations that have had a negative impact on the historicity of Ramanuajs’ life events. We pick up from here in this article.

The dates of Ramanuja’s stay outside Chola country deduced so far are as follows.

Ramanuja leaving the Chola country (Persecution) – CE 1078

Ramanuja entering Melkote – CE 1099
(The above two were established in precious parts)

Ramanuja’s return to the Chola country – CE 1111 -this is based on the traditional account that he spent 12 years in Melkote and returned only after the death of Krimikanṭha Chola. As per this calculation Ramanuja had stayed outside for 32 years and Krimikanṭha Chola had lived until CE 1111. This date will have to be proved in our analysis.

The historians’ proof for Adhirajendra’s end.

The absence of inscriptions of Adhrajendra beyond his 3rd regnal year has made the historians assume that his end must have come on his 3rd year which they identified as CE 1070. In the same year Kulottunga’s regnal year begins. This made the historians believe that Kulottunga had taken over the regime from Adhirajendra. The evidence they quote for this change of regime is the literary work ‘Vikramankadeva Charita’, written by Bilhana in Sanskrit on the adventures of the Western Chalukyan king Vikramaditya VI.

The first and the only ever English translation of this Sanskrit text done by Georg Bulher and published in the year 1875 mentions a war with Vīrarajendra, the father of Adhirajendra and the truce clinched by Vīrarajendra by offering his daughter’s hand in marriage with Vikramaditya. After a while news reached Vikramaditya that Vīrarajendra died and the Chola country was in a state of anarchy. Hearing this Vikramaditya rushed first to Kanchi and controlled the wicked (Dushta varga). After this he went to Gangaikonda Cholapuram and destroyed the armies of the enemy and anointed the Chola Prince to the throne. Then he went to Kanchi again and spent about a month happily after which he returned to Tunghabadra. Something happened after that!

The exact text by Buhler is reproduced below: [i]

Before proceeding further it is better to know the background of the war between Vikramaditya and the Cholas.


The country to the north of the Tamil lands was occupied by two groups of Chalukyas, the eastern and the western Chalukyas. The Western Chalukyas had influence over parts of today’s Karnataka, Maharashtra and parts of Madhya Pradesh with their capital at Kalyan. There were many smaller dynasties within this region such as Hoysalas and there was always a shifting of balance of power among them in different periods of time.

The Eastern Chalukyas controlled the regions of today’s Andhra and Telangana with their capital at Vengi near today’s Eluru. For nearly three centuries before Ramanuja’s period there was constant fight between the two Chalukyas to bring the entire region under one control. From the time of Rajaraja I the Cholan influence in this region started. Rajaraja I fought on the side of Eastern Chalukyas and won back Vengi. Though we don’t know exactly the nature of the victory, we can see that the Cholas almost had Vengi as their vassal state. Rajaraja cemented the influence over Vengi by marrying his daughter Kundavai to the Eastern Chalukyan Vimaladitya who was made the king of Vengi.

Since then the Cholas were drawn into a lot of conflicts with the Western Chalukyas in a bid to retain Vengi and the adjoining countries like Kalinga and Chakkara-kottam (Bastar in today’s Chhattisgarh). Starting from Rajaraja’s times the conflicts had continued with western Chalukyas until the time of Vīrarajendra.

During the times of Vīrarajendra, Ahavamalla (Somesvara I ) was the western Chalukyan king with whom Vīrarajendra fought several wars. Finally Ahavamalla drowned in the sea, unable to face the heat of Cholan incursions. This was followed by a succession war between Ahavamalla’s sons Someswara II and Vikramaditya VI. Now the Cholas had two enemies in western Chalukyas and perhaps this made the war-weary Vīrarajendra seek peace with Vikramaditya which was signed on the banks of Tungabhadra. As a mark of friendship Vīrarajendra’s daughter was married to Vikramaditya. (This marriage had happened near Tungabhadra and not in the Chola capital. The daughter of the king was perhaps brought over there following the truce or she could have been staying at Vengi which happened to be the home of her aunt Ammanga, sister of Vīrarajendra.) We get to know about this marriage only from  Bilhana’s Vikramankadeva Charitam.

There is no inscriptional evidence for this truce but the Tamil text Takkayaga Bharani refers to the friendship between Vīrarajendra and Vikramaditya.[ii]  This makes it certain that there was a friendship developed with Vikramaditya of the western Chalukyas in Vīrarajendra’s times. This must have happened in his 7th regnal year.

As per the account of Bilhana, Vīrarajendra returned to his capital at Gangaikonda Cholapuram but died soon after that, perhaps due to war wounds. An undated record at Tiruvottriyur tells about a grant for worship seeking the welfare of the king and prosperity of the queen’s Tirumangalyam.[iii] So we can be assured that Bilhana’s account is true.

The king had died in the early part of his 8th regnal year. This was followed by anarchy in the Chola country particularly in Kanchi! Vikramaditya had immediately set out for Kanchi and crushed the rebellion. From there he went to Gangaikonda Cholapuram and put the ‘son of Chola’ on the throne. He is assumed to be Adhirajendra!

Adhirajendra was already made a co-regent in 1068 while his father was alive. His regnal years started from 15th June, 1068. [iv] His formal accession as King of Kings, the Supreme ruler of the Chola country had happened after the death of his father. That was his 2nd regnal year. As a senior King and the son in law of the royal family, Vikramaditya had consecrated Adhirajendra to the throne. This is known from Bilhana’s text only.

Discrepancies in the sequence of events and interpretation.

When we analyse the original verses in Sanskrit of Vikramankadeva Charitam with the translation given by Buhler, we find some inconsistencies and doubtable interpretation in the translation.  Unfortunately all the historians had embraced this translation by Buhler without checking the original text. Let us see those discrepancies that have twisted the history of Cholas thereby leading to the rejection of the historicity of the events in the life of Ramanuja with particular reference to persecution. 

The text of Sanskrit verses says that after hearing the news of the death of Vīrarajendra, Vikramaditya set out for the Chola country to appoint the son of Chola (Chola Putra) to the throne. At first he reached Kanchi and quelled the rebellion there. He was received well by the people of Kanchi which Bilhana describes in more than 10 verses. (An element of exaggeration may be there as this text is a panegyric to sing the glory of Vikramaditya VI) He says that the people admired Vikramaditya’s valour in thrashing the rebellion. This stay seemed to be aimed at gaining a foot-hold in Kanchi and getting acceptance from the people of Kanchi. One must know that this is the first time a Western Chalukyan king was able to enter the Chola kingdom. In contrast the eastern Chalukyans must have endeared themselves to Chola people right from the time of Rajaraja I.

Now the discrepancies start. Buhler’s narration having discrepancies is reproduced below.[v]

·       Buhler says that Vikramaditya returned to Kanchi after the coronation of the son of Chola and stayed there for a month before leaving for Tungabhadra. This is not so according to the original verses of Vikramankadeva Charitam. The sequence of events given in the text is such that Vikramaditya went to Kanchi first, controlled the rioters (Dushta varga)[vi], got a good reception and after that went over to Gangaikonda Cholapuram. There he fought against the dacoits in conflict with the army of traders (Vidhyatita paripanti saiya sārthi:) and controlled them. After that he crowned the son of Chola (Chola Sūnu) and stayed for a month before returning to Tungabhadra.[vii] The sequence of events is important which we will see in the course of this article. And with whom he fought is also very important.  

·       Nowhere the original text mentions the word ‘brother-in-law’ of Vikramaditya for the Chola king. When Vikramaditya set out for the Chola country it is said that he proceeded to install the ‘Chola-putrē’ (7th case- Vibhakti) on the throne.[viii]  When he actually installed the king on the throne, it uses the word “Chola Sūnum” (2nd case).[ix] And again when it says that Rajiga had taken the mantle it uses the word ‘Chola-SūnŌh’(5th case – ‘from him’). Though there can be no doubt about the meaning of ‘putra’, same cannot be told for the word ‘Sūnu’. Sūnu has multiple meanings such as son, daughter’s son and younger brother. This word appearing in a crucial context of death of someone, one cannot be casual in approach in translating this word and the verse where it appears.

·       From the continuing narration of Buhler it is known that the Vengi and Chola history were not well known at the time of writing that translation. Chalukya inscriptions were only then being discovered, giving rise to lot of speculations on the identity of the kings. Buhler’s understanding of the king (Vīrarajendra) whose daughter was married to Vikramaditya shows how far away he was from truth at that time. He says that the daughter of Vikramadeva Kulottunga (?) was married to Vikramaditya. A brother of Rajiga was installed in the throne by Vikramaditya who died perhaps due to the interference of Vikramaditya. This narration is reproduced below.[x]

·       The lack of information on the Chola history at that time had resulted in paying less attention to the nature of rebellion in the country after Virarajendra’s death. The text does give hints on the rebellion but historians had simply overlooked the details about them. Any disturbance in that period brings to their mind the persecution of Ramanuja found in all the Vaishanvite texts. Their casual approach to the events narrated in Vikramankadeva Charitam and in the life of Ramanuja as well can be best understood from the write-up of Nilakanta Sastri. [xi]

Another historian Mr K.V. Raman completely embraced the version of Buhler without any questions. He too ‘killed’ Adhirajendra and accepted the usurpation theory in his book fore-worded by Nilakanta Sastri.[xii]

But Dr Nagaswamy writes a different story, not supported by any evidence but fit enough to be called as a myth. The following is written by Dr Nagaswamy in his book ‘Gangaikonda Cholapuram’[xiii]

  • Dr Nagaswamy gives a different colour to the rebellion described by Vikramankadeva Charitam. But he doesn’t support the usurpation theory. He makes an unreasonable premise that the Chola generals did not like Adhirajendra aligning with Vikramaditya. If this is true they must have raised objection even earlier to the decision of Vīrarajendra to marry his daughter to Vikramaditya. Only that alliance gave scope for Vikramaditya to poke into the affairs of the Chola kingdom. What newer threat can be expected from him when aligned with Adhirajendra? Therefore this reasoning of Dr Nagaswamy is totally untenable – and done for the sake of cooking up a theory that Adhirajendra died in a rebellion.
The fact is that Adhirajendra was very much alive at that time, known from the Chittamalli inscription of his 3rd regnal year dated at 9th May, 1071.[xiv] This makes it certain that Adhirajendra did not die in any riot, which further establishes that there was no transfer of power from Adhirajendra to Kulottunga I.

Breaking the myths around the ‘death’ of Adhirajendra.

(1) Was Adhirajendra a weak ruler?

1.     Dr Nagaswamy says that Adhirajendra was a weak ruler (in the passage quoted above). It is not known on what basis he says this. The Prashasti of Adhirajendra is self-revealing of his grandeur and as a powerful king. His inscription dated at the 200th day of his 3rd year (Jan 1, 1071) hails him in glorious terms and adds that “the princes of the vast earth worshiped his feet by turns, (he) decked himself as with garlands, with valour and liberality and was pleased to be seated on the throne of heroes together with (his queen) Ulagamuludidaiyar.”[xv]

Any ruler could get his Prashasti written in lavish style, but reference to other kings worshiping at his feet could not have been an exaggeration given the fact that he lived in the times of great Chola kings having their boundaries extended far and wide. Critics must give him some benefit of doubt that a descendant of those heroes could not have been a weakling.

2.     There are evidences suggesting that Adhirajendra was a successful warrior who brought victories to his father and paternal uncles. An inscription of the 3rd regnal year of Virarajendra (CE 1066) refers to a gift for burning perpetual lamp in a temple at Kalahasti located in “Adhirajendra Mandalam”![xvi] The Chola kings didn’t name the divisions of their country out of love for someone, but only when that someone had done exceedingly well in wars and brought great victories.

3.     The exact date of winning this place is not known but Kalahasti and its surroundings were ruled by King of Pottappi whom Virarajendra claims to have killed according to an inscription (S.I.I., III, i.33f.n.1).[xvii] The above gift appearing in the 3rd regnal year of Vīrarajendra is proof for this claim. The division of the land named after Adhirajendra shows that it was mainly a war won by Adhirajendra.

The above inscription appearing in 1066-67 shows that Adhirajendra was not a co-regent at that time as his regnal started from 1068 only. Even Virarajendra had not ascended the main throne at Gangaikonda Cholapuram as Rajendra Chola II was very much alive in the year 1066-67. The inscription mentioning Virarajendra’s regnal year in a region named after his son, Adhirajendra shows that both the father and the son had fought the war to take over Kalahasti region and in appreciation of Adhirajendra’s role in the war, the region was named after him.

4.     The location of Kalahasti in Adhirajendra Mandalam brings out a connection with Ramanuja’s history. Ramanuja scored a major victory in Tirumala against the Saivas in establishing the identity of the deity as Vishnu. Those Saivas were from Kalahasti according to Pillai Lokam Jeer in his commentary to the verse 54 of Ramanuja Nootrandhadhi.[xviii]  

5.     The Saivas of Kalahasti claimed that Venkateswara was Skanda. Their origin in Kalahasti in the region of Adhirajendra Mandalam raises a question on whether they were emboldened by the patronage of Adhirajendra to claim that Lord Venkateswara was Skanda - the failure to do which led them to devise ways to make the king turn hostile to Ramanuja. This also puts the date of Ramanuja establishing Lord Venkateswara as Vishnu anytime after 1065/66.

6.     The name of the major division of the land after Adhirajendra appearing in the year 1066 shows that Adhirajendra had brought some victories even before the death of Rajendra II (who died in 1068 – see foot note)[xix]. (Incidentally it was in 1068, Adhirajendra was made the co-regent. This makes is probable that Adhirajendra was given co-regency after the death of Rajendra II.)The naming of the Mandalam could have been effected by Rajendra II himself and not necessarily by his father Vīrarajendra. The region falling in Chalukyan regions shows that he was personally engaged in wars in the regions of eastern Chalukyas. This could not have been against the interests of Rajiga (Kulottunga) for Kulottunga’s mother was the sister of Rajendra II and Vīrarajendra. Therefore any presumption of enmity between Adhirajendra and Kulottunga cannot be made without looking into these connections.

7.     Yet another victory assignable to Adhirajendra pertains to a war in Ceylon. An inscription at Perumbur at Chingleput district dated at the 7th regnal year of Vīrarajendra (CE 1069-70) states that he “subdued the Singala country”.[xx]  This is the 2nd year of Adhirajendra. Two inscriptions are found in the temple of Vanavanmadevi Iswaram (founded in memory of the mother of Rajendra I) at Polonnaruwa in Ceylon mentioning the 2nd  regnal year of Adhirajendra.[xxi]  Vīrarajendra was also in throne at that time and his prashasti in that year (7th regnal year) differs from the previous ones and makes reference to victory in Ceylon without any more details.[xxii]  This raises the scope to believe that Adhirajendra was personally engaged in the war in Ceylon and in clinching the victory. Around the same time, Vīrarajendra was in a war with western Chalukyas  near Tungabhadra and other conquests of which a re-conquest of Vengi finds mention in his 7th regnal year.[xxiii]  

8.     Yet another victory of the Cholas assignable to Adhirajendra was over Kadaram!! This actually appears in the prashasti of Vīrarajendra following the victory in Ceylon.[xxiv]  Nilakanta sastri also writes about the victory over Kadaram in Virarajendra’s reign in 1068 (5th year). [xxv] But the victory of Kadaram gets mention in the Prasasti of 7th regnal year of Virarajendra (CE 1070),[xxvi] confirming that it was won at the time of war in Ceylon. This coincides with the 2nd regnal year of Adhirajendra and the appearance of his inscriptions in Ceylon.

9.     Though the first ever victory over Kadaram was scored by Virarajendra’s father Rajendra I, another expedition had happened in the reign of Virarajendra to help one of it rulers ‘who sought his protection and to have established him on the throne.’ Sastri thinks that this doesn’t seem improbable. But what looks improbable is Vīrarajendra taking part in the Kadaram war personally. At that time he was busy in the Chalukyan region fighting against western Chalukyas and re-taking Vengi. It sounds absolutely improbable for a king to be omnipresent in too many war fronts both inside India and outside India.

With Adhirajendra’s regnal year appearing in Ceylon, it looks probable that Adhirajendra took care of the sea expeditions and finished the target assigned to him in Ceylon and Kadaram in a single expedition. From what Sastri says the Kadaram expedition was to establish an amicable person in the throne of Kadaram, a vassal state paying them tributes. This sounds more political than military in nature.

The Cholas were of a kind that they had taken credit for all the wars happened in their regimes as a co-ruler and also as a ruler. There must have been Adirajendra’s inscriptions mentioning the Kadaram-expedition, but for certain reasons his inscriptions had not survived beyond 1071. This suspicion is strengthened by the visit of ambassadors of Kadaram mentioned in the smaller Leyden grant of Kulottunga I wherein it is stated that Kulottunga received them while he was in the Tirumanjana sālai at Pazhayarai (Ayirattali)![xxvii]

Why Kulottunga received foreign dignitaries at Tirumanjana Salai?

By the meaning of it, Tirumanjana sālai refers to bath room! Suppose Kulottunga was the reigning king at Gangaikonda Cholapuram, why didn’t he receive them at the capital city? Assuming that he was at Pazhaiyarai at that time, why didn’t he choose to receive them at the palace at Pazhaiyarai? Why at the Tirumanjana Sālai? He had issued grants from the Abhisheka Mandapa in Kanchi.[xxviii] But Abhisheka refers to sacred bath done at the time of coronation. This is not the same as Tirumanjanam . Sastri refers to a strange expression referring to bathing, found in the inscription No 74 of 1932, “vīttin uḷḷāl kuḷillum – idatthu referring to a bathing place.[xxix]

This kind of reception to a foreign dignitary can be anticipated only under two circumstances, one when the king wanted to show his displeasure to the dignitary and by that, to the concerned foreign king and two, when the king was not a primary ruler but a kind of vassal who didn’t possess a prime location for audience in Pazhaiyarai to receive a visiting dignitary. The first one is ruled out as the visit was meant for getting grants for Buddha viharas. Kulottunga could not be expected to have played mean for a demand like that. But the second probability exists if we assume that Adhirajendra continued to be the prime king – the King of Kings in Gangaikonda Cholapuram throne for a very long time (until CE 1111 - which happened to be the year of return of Ramanuja).

The emissaries could have first met Adhirajendra at Gangaikonda Cholapuram and then had proceeded to meet Kulottunga. Kulottunga had received them in a royal place accessible to him and that happened to be known as Tirumanjana Salai. If this is true, it means Kulottunga didn’t have his own official residence at Pazhaiyurai.

(2) Did Chola Generals rebel against Adhirajendra?

·       Having proved that Adhirajendra was not a weak king, we proceed to analyse the theory of Dr Nagaswamy that the Chola Generals rebelled against him after his father’s death. The idea of this rebellion seems to have been taken from Vikramankadeva Charitam that tells about some troubles in Gangaikonda Cholapuram. But that was not a rebellion by the army or of a religious kind which many historians think. A reading of the relevant verse from Vikramanka Charitam gives a different kind of problem.[xxx]

 It says “Vighatita paripanthi sainya sārthi:”
Vighatita – severed, broken, disorganised
Paripanthi – enemy, dacoits, brigands
Sainya- army
Sārthi  – merchants, traders, travelling with a caravan

Meaning: The army of the merchants were severed the by dacoits or enemies.

The term ‘Sainya Sārthi’ holds the clue. Sārthi is known as “Saatthu” (சாத்து) in Tamil. This word appears in Sangam age Tamil.[xxxi] They were known as ‘Vaniga Saatthu’ – the group of merchants travelling from place to place carrying their goods for sale. They used to be accompanied with a small army appointed by themselves or by the king in the Highways. This was for protection of their life and goods from dacoits on the way. 

The above verse conveys that they have been attacked by brigands which happened soon after the death of Vīrarajendra. A laxity in the security conditions could be expected soon after the death of a supreme king when everyone was mourning over the death. The brigands seemed to have taken advantage of this and attacked the merchant- army. Vikramaditya seemed to have been there at that time, perhaps on his way from Kanchi to Gangaikonda Cholapuram and repelled the attack.

The text written to eulogise Vikramaditya could be expected to have described every victory – whatever be the nature – to add glory to him. One can read a similar account on his return journey from Gangaikonda Cholapuram in the very next verse that he subdued forest brigands and hunters!

It appears that the Bilhana didn’t miss out any opportunity to highlight the valour of the Western Chalukyan Vikramaditya, even if it is about attacking forest brigands.  Having got a foot-hold in the Chola country for the first time through marriage, every act of Vikramaditya had been hyped by Bilhana. But it had been further hyped by Dr Nagaswamy as though the Chola army went against Adhirajendra. Others wondered whether it had anything to do with a religious riot that culminated in the persecution of Ramanuja. It needs to be emphasised here that the persecution happened in 1078, but we are still in the 1070 – the year Vīrarajendra died.

(3) Did the Chola king die in a riot?
·       From the above description it is known for sure that no riot against the king happened in the capital city of Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Dr. Nagaswamy is completely wrong in spinning up such a story. What was described was a highway robbery that Vikramaditya crushed on his way to Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Therefore it is absolutely wrong to say that Adhirajendra died in a riot following his father’s death. The only evidence quoted by historians is Vikramankadeva Charitam and that text does not say so.

·       However the death of Vīrarajendra did coincide with a riot in Kanchi. According to Vikramankadeva Charitam, some trouble in Kanchi is implicitly indicated in two verses, during the entry of Vikramaditya into Kanchi and while he left Kanchi. On the first occasion[xxxii] it is said that the enemy kings were frightened on hearing the noise and dust generated by the army of Vikramaditya entering Kanchi. It is difficult to say who the ‘enemy kings’ were as until the marriage of Vikramaditya with the Chola princess, the Cholas were enemies of Vikramaditya. So this description could have simply referred to cholas.

·       On leaving Kanchi, Vikramaditya is praised as one having crushed the ‘Dushta varga’ (bad people).[xxxiii] This can be interpreted two ways, as a general term or some real trouble. Kanchi being the first city on his way to Gangaikonda Cholapuram, it could have been a normal event that he entered Kanchi first. But a long description of Bilhana on how the people of Kanchi admired him in comparison with a short description of the same in Gangaikonda Cholapuram though he spent one full month in the capital city seems to convey that the poet wanted to show that Vikramaditya endeared himself with the people of Kanchi. The reason for this could be known from a subsequent verse that brings in Kulottunga to the scene.

·       After reaching Tungabhadra, Vikramaditya received the news that Kulottunga (Rajiga) had taken up the throne. The verse does not explicitly mention the place but Buhler says that it was at Kanchi![xxxiv]

·       Buhler must have deduced the presence of Kulottunga in Kanchi from the subsequent verses that tell about Vikramaditya facing the heat of getting hemmed between two foes. This looks highly probable only if Kulottunga was in Kanchi as it was the border city of the Chola territory. If the ‘usurpation’ of the throne had happened in Gangaikonda Cholapuram, it would have been highly risky as that entails a long march for Vikramaditya within the Chola territory

·       If it is true that Kulottunga had taken up the reign at Kanchi, it resolves the issue of whether Adhirajendra continued to rule or not. As a direct heir, Adhirajendra inherited the main throne at Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Kulottunga, his cousin (son of father’s sister) was given ruler-ship of Kanchi.

·       The verse does say something that can be interpreted to mean the death of someone. The verse is reproduced below.[xxxv]

·       The translation / interpretation by Buhler is as follows:[xxxvi]

·       Buhler has taken the word ‘Chola- sūnŌh’ to mean the son of Chola (Chola prince) and had written that the he was killed in the rebellion. This was accepted by all historians without any analysis with the result that Chola- Sūnu  was equated with Adhirajendra. But we have already established earlier in this article that Buhler was wrong in his understanding of kings. It must be kept in mind that his work was written 140 years ago when archaeology was at its infancy and many inscriptions were waiting to be discovered.

·       In such a backdrop it is regretful that no historians of repute cared to re-visit the verses and interpret them in the light of new discoveries. In an unfortunate development the Benaras Hindu University had published the Hindi translation of these verses with interpretation by writing Adhirajendra in the place of Chola Sūnu.[xxxvii] One must know that no word expressing the relationship with Vikramaditya, that is, brother in law is used. But the historians had taken the liberty to use that word in the place of Chola Sūnu, to indicate that it was Adhirajendra.

·       In the light of this aberration we are looking at the verse and its meaning with the help of a Sanskrit scholar Sri R.Ramanathan. It is reproduced below.

(Sarga 5, verse 26)
Shratha katipucideva daivayogāt parigaliteshu dineshu cholasūno: /
Shriyamaharat Rajigābhidhāna: prakriti virodha hatasya Venginātha://

Shratha = relaxing, delighting (continuing from the previous verse that says Vikramaditya had gone back to Tungabhadra after relaxing in Kanchi)

Katipucideva = (general meaning) after a while

Daivayogāt = by chance or by the will of God/ grace of God

Parigaliteshu = in having fallen

Dineshu =in / on several days (Bahuvachan)

Cholasūno= From Chola’s son, Chola’s daughter’s son / Chola’s younger brother

Shriyam = wealth (contextually country)

Aharat =  receive / take away / get / pick up

Rajigābhidhāna = the one named Rajiga (Kulottunga’s original name)

prakriti virodha = against Dharma / natural law / rule / citizens

hatasya = struck / cheated/ destroyed /killed

Venginātha: = Lord of Vengi

The term Chola- Sūnu refers to three different relations, as son, daughter’s son and younger brother of the Chola.

The son was Adhirajendra who was still living as we know from Chittamalli inscriptions. Therefore Chola- Sūnu does not refer to him.

The daughter’s son was Kulottunga as he was the son of Ammanga, daughter of Rajendra II. We have the history of his rule for 50 years, and therefore the verse does not refer to him either.

The younger brother could refer to Rajamahendra, the younger brother of Rajendra II which we will be proving in due course. He didn’t rule the main throne at Gangaikonda Cholapuram but he was a co-ruler.

Only the ‘younger brother’ fitting the bill, the verse can be re-phrased as follows:

1. daivayogāt prakriti virodha hatasya cholasūno parigaliteshu dineshu

Meaning: Many days after the younger brother of the Chola had fallen / was killed against the norms of Dharma, by the design of God.  

2. Venginātha: Rajigābhidhāna: Shriyamaharat

Meaning: Rajiga, the lord of Vengi had taken for himself / received the Rajyashree (rule of the country)

The verse implies that a king died an unfortunate death and
Kulottunga had taken up his place.

Before explaining who it could have been, let us see what Dr Nagaswamy has to say about Kulottunga’s coronation. Quoting Kalingathu Bharani he says that Kulottunga was earlier crowned as a prince by Vīrarajendra. He returned to the country from his northern expedition on hearing the death of Vīrarajendra and was subsequently crowned by the Chola Generals.[xxxviii] This is in disagreement with Buhler’s translation that sees Kulottunga as a usurper of the throne.

With myths being floated as historical facts by distinguished historians – having an impact on the history of Ramanuja, we have to clear the air with facts.

Fact no 1: Kulottunga didn’t usurp the throne.

1.     By now we know that no usurpation had happened from the fact that Adhirajendra had continued in power when Kulottunga was given co-regency. Adhirajendra’s reign had continued in CE 1071 while Kulottunga’s regnal year started in 1070.

2.     Kulottunga I was not a direct heir to the Chola throne. His mother and grandmother came from Chola royal family while his father and grandfather belonged to Eastern Chalukya family. Three women from three successive generations of the Chola family, namely the daughters of Rajaraja I, Rajendra I and Rajendra II were married to the same family in three successive generations of Eastern Chalukyas. Adhirajendra was Kulottunga’s maternal uncle’s son. In other words Kulottunga’s mother and Adhrajendra’s father were own siblings.  Disregarding this closeness, some historians tend to postulate that Kulottunga usurped the Chola throne after Adhirajendra died. The close relationship is shown in the family tree below.

If Kulottunga had wanted the Chola throne, he could have got it easily by influencing his relatives and not necessarily by ‘usurping’ the throne.

3. The Prashasti of Kulottunga specifically states that he received the throne in the proper way (திருமணி மகுடம் முறைமையில் சூடி). This line appears in the grant given by none other than the wife of Vīrarajendra in his 15th regnal year.[xxxix] If her son (Adhirajendra) had been wronged by Kulottunga or if Kulottunga got the throne through foul means, she could not have included this line in the grant she had given.

Fact No 2: Kulottunga was not made the prince of Gangaikonda Cholapuram.

Quoting Kalingtthu Bharani, Dr Nagaswamy claims that Vīrarajendra made Kulottunga the prince of Gangaikonda Cholapuram. The relevant verse is reproduced below:

Meaning: After he (Kulottunga) was made a prince by Vīrarajendra (Abhayan), Kulottunga decided to do things that bring prosperity (fame) to the kings.

  • Kalingathu Bharani does say that Kulottunga was made a prince by ‘Abhayan’ which seems to refer to Vīrarajendra who won the war at Kudal Sangam.[xl] But that was not for the Chola throne, for any such reference would have automatically entitled the prince to have his regnal year counted from that date. Kulottunga’s regnal year started from 1070 only, after the death of Vīrarajendra. So this must be with reference to the Vengi throne. Vengi was very much a vassal state for the Cholas. Kulottunga (Rajiga / Rajendra) was made the prince of Vengi after which he had gone to north to subdue Chakkarakkottam and other places, according to Kalingatthu Bharani.

  • From Chellur plates it is known that when Kulottunga came to Chola domains to take up co-regency upon the death of Vīrarajendra, he had appointed his paternal uncle Vijayaditya in Vengi throne. [xli] This reiterates the view that it was originally occupied by Kulottunga. At the same time the 7th regnal year inscription of Vīrarajendra states that he bestowed the Vengi mandalam to Vijayaditya (paternal uncle of Kulottunga).[xlii] As Chief King of Kings, (Mannar Mannavan) Vīrarajendra had appointed Vijayaditya to the Vengi throne while giving co-regency of Vengi to Kulottunga is what is deduced from this. This had happened in his 7th regnal year (1069-70) close to his death. After getting co-regency of Vengi Kulottunga had gone in northern expedition and subdued places like Chakkara Kottam at which time he received the news of death of Vīrarajendra. All these had happened within few months. Only after Virarajendra’s death Kulottunga’s innings started in the Chola country.

  • No inscription claims that Kulottunga was made a prince (co-ruler) of the Chola country. All the three brothers Rajadhiraja, Rajendra II and Virarajendra who ascended the throne one after the other[xliii]  had honoured their nearest kith and kin, but Kulottunga’s name does not appear anywhere. The following table gives the names of close relatives honoured by the three kings during their regimes. Their titles are given in brackets. Interestingly this table helps us to locate Rajamahendra Chola, whose life is still shrouded in mystery.
Column I

Rajadhiraja I
Manimangalam inscription.[xliv]

29th regnal year

Column II

Rajendra II
Manimangalam inscription.[xlv]

Column III

Karuvur inscription.[xlvi]

4th regnal year

(Rajendra I’s) younger brother
Erivali Gangaikonda Chola
(Pongikal Irumudi Chola)

1.Elder Brother
Younger brothers

1.Mummudi Chola

2.Veera Chola
(Karikal Chola)

3. Madhuranthakan
(Chola Gangan)

4. Parantakan
(Chola Ayodhya Rajan)
Elder brother

1. Alavanthan
1. (Minavan)

2. (Gangan)

3. (Pallavan)

4. (Kanyakubjan)
1. Rajendra Chola
(Uttama Chola)

2. Mudikonda Chola
(Igal Vijayalan)

3. Chola Keralan
(Vaarsilai Chola Keralan)

4. Kadaram Konda Chola
(Chola Janaka Rajan)

5. Mudikonda Chola
(Sundara Chola)

6. Irattappadi Chola (Kanyakunjan)

1. Gangaikonda Chola

2. Mudikonda Chola
(Sundara Chola)

1. Madhuranthakan
(Chola Vallabhan)

2. Aanai Sevakan
(Nrupendra Chola)

It can be seen that none of them have been mentioned in the original names. Each one of them had attained a name for oneself through participation in some wars. The titles further highlight the victories associated with them. Different segments of the Chola country (Mandalam) were ruled by the sons and grandsons mentioned in the table. Of them Adhirajendra and Rajamahendra were elevated to the level of co-rulers with the right to have their own prashasti and issue grants in their name and regnal years. 

Fact 3: Rajamahendra was the younger brother (Chola-Sūnu) of Rajendra II

The Kanyakumari inscription of Vīrarajendra issued in his 7th regnal year clearly state that his father was Rajendra Chola I who was succeeded by his three sons, one after the other. They were Rajadhiraja, Rajendra II and Vīrarajendra.[xlvii]

Rajamahendra not appearing in the list of kings to the main throne at Gangaikonda Cholapuram shows that he remained a co-regent only. Let us  see where he was positioned among the brothers.
Table 1 shows that Rajendra II had 4 younger brothers and Vīrarajendra had one elder brother. The 2nd younger brother of Rajendra II is mentioned as Vira Chola who was given the title Karikal Chola. Vira Chola refers to Virarajendra and this is known from the grammar work in Tamil called ‘Vira Choliam’ composed by Budhamitra in the name of Virarajendra during his tenure. This text mentions his name as Vira Chola in the 3rd verse of Payiram and as Virarajendra Chola in the 7th verse.

Having now established Vīrarajendra in the 2nd Column as Vira Chola, his only elder brother happens to be Mummudi Chola (at times written as Mummadi Chola). The only elder brother appearing as Alavanthan in the 3rd column of Virarajendra’s inscription makes it clear that both refer to the same person.

Co-regent at Pandyan territory.

During the period of Rajendra II, Mummudi Chola was given the title Chola-Pandya indicating that he had won the Pandyan territory. That territory included Azhagar Malai (Tirumalirum Cholai) going by the fact that an undated inscription of a Chola king “Chola Pandya’ is found in the temple of Tirumalirum Cholai.[xlviii] The land division named after Rajaraja and Rajendra Chola (as Rajendra Chola Valanadu in Rajaraja Pandi Nadu) is proof that this king Chola Pandya had come after these two kings. This establishes without doubt that Chola Pandya was Mummudi Chola who enjoyed the ruler ship over the Pandyan regions won by him.

The same person appears with the name “Alavanthan” in Virarajendra’s Karuvur inscriptions. He was given the title as Rajaraja, the name of their grandfather. King Rajaraja I was also known as Mummudi Chola. Both these names were given to ‘Alavanthan’ which literally means ‘one who has come to rule’. This person had aligned with both Rajendra II and Virarajendra. The only person who fits with this description is Rajamahendra whose 3rd year inscription says that he fought against Ahavamalla. Both Rajendra II and Virarajendra had fought with Ahavamalla (Western Chalukyan king and father of Vikramaditya VI).

It seems he had lost or shifted from his regency in Pandya lands. This could have happened if they lost the Pandyan territory. (Azhagar Malai was rarely occupied by Cholas going by the presence of only 2 inscriptions of Cholas found there). It is not known when this shift had happened, but must have happened after the death of Rajendra II as the new title, Alavanthan was given by Virarajendra.
Virarajendra’s Karuvur inscription appears in his 4th regnal year corresponding to CE 1067. In that year he had the given the title to Mummudi Chola alias Alavanthan. If that is counted as the first regnal year of Mummudi Chola, he must be running his 3rd year in 1070 when Vīrarajendra died. We can correlate this with the fact that Rajamahendra’s inscriptions appeared for the last time in his 3rd year!

The younger brother of Rajendra II (Chola Sūnu) who happened to be the elder brother of Vīrarajendra, having proved his war-mettle in the Pandyan lands (that gave him the title and co-regency as Chola Pandya by Rajendra II) and against Ahavamalla was all in likelihood given co-regency by Vīrarajendra. That he was Rajamahendra is known from Kalingatthu Bharani.

Fact 4: Rajamahendra was succeeded by Kulottunga I.

The genealogy of Kulottunga given in Kalingatthu Bharani mentions Mummudi Chola as his predecessor.
This verse praises him as one who follows Manu neeti to give able ruler-ship. The word Mummadi is used in a context of double meaning that (1) Mummadi chola was never lazy – a feature even Tiruvalluvar  mentions as a quality needed for kings.[xlix]  (2) he was three times and four times greater than Manu.

The line-up of kings is such that this king appears after Rajendra II. The next verse directly starts with the birth of Kulottunga though a caveat is added that after the death of Vīrarajendra. It is well known from our analysis that Kulottunga did not ascend the throne after Vīrarajendra. The text only says that ‘after the death of Virarajencdra’ implying that the end of Rajamahendra and Virarajendra had occurred almost at the same time. After Rajamahendra, Kulottunga ascended the throne when Virarajendra died.

Comparison with the genealogy given in Vikrama Chola Ula, sung in praise of Vikrama Chola, son of Kulottunga I who succeeded him to the throne, shows that he was Rajamahendra only. Vikarama refers to Rajamahendra’s gift of the gem studded cover for the Hood of Lord Ranganatha’s snake bed. In the same verse he refers to one ‘Avani Kaatthon’ after Virarajendra – apparently a reference to the one whose name was not fit to be uttered – that is Krimikantha Chola. Even this Chola king had stopped mentioning his name as Adhirajendra!  

The genealogy starting from Rajaraja I found in Kalingatthu Bharani (Kulottunga I), Vikrama Cholan Ula, Kulottunga Cholan Ula (Kulottunga II) and Rajaraja Cholan Ula (Rajaraja II) are given below for comparison.

Kalingatthu Bharani

(Kulottunga I)
Vikrama Cholan Ula

(Vikrama Chola)
Kulottunga Cholan Ula

(Kulottunga II)
Rajaraja Chola Ula

(Rajaraja II)

Rajaraja (I)
Rajaraja (I)
Rajaraja (I)
Rajaraja (I)

Rajendra (II)
Rajendra (I)
Rajendra (I)
Rajendra (I)


Vijaya Rajendra
Rajendra (II)
Rajendra (II)

Rajendra (II)




Avani Kaatthon

Kulottunga (I)
Kulottunga (I)
Kulottunga (I)


Kulottunga (II)

Rajamahendra never ruled as the King of kings from Gangaikonda Cholapuram as per Kanyakumari inscription of Virarajendra. His name appears before Vīrarajendra only in Kalinagthu Bharani and Vikrama Chola Ula. But there is a discrepancy in the line-up in these two. It is well known that Kulottunga didn’t succeed Vīrarajendra, but Kalingathu Bharani shows him to succeed Vīrarajendra. In Vikrama Ula the correction is made and Kulottunga is shown to have succeeded ‘Avani Kaatthon’.

This proves two different scenarios

(1) Initial accession of Kulottunga was after Rajamahendra

(2) Accession to main throne of Cholas after ‘Avani Kaatthon’.

Kulottunga succeeded Rajamahendra and not Virarajendra, and this was also explained earlier from the verses of Kalingatthu Bharani. As immediate successors, Kulottunga and Vikrama had recognised Rajamahendra.  Only because of disappearance of Rajamahendra from the scene (by death in a riot), Kulottunga, the Chalukya was able to get a foot hold in the Chola country.

His readiness to grab this opportunity or inner desire to get a hold in the Chola Empire is betrayed very late in his tenure in the Chellur plates dated at 21st regnal year of his son Vira chola alias Vikrama Chola, ruler of Vengi at that time. This corresponds to CE 1109, within 2 years before the death of Krimikantha Chola!!  It is reproduced below:[l]

Here Kulottunga says that desiring the Chola kingdom he quit Vengi by making his uncle Vijayaditya the king. Earlier we showed 7th year inscription of Virarajendra saying that Virarajendra made Vijayaditya the king of Vengi. This was in 1069-70. But Chellur plates say that Kulottunga made Vijayaditya the king of Vengi. It is possible to deduce what had happened.

Vijayaditya was originally crowned in Vengi by Vīrarajendra who died soon after. Kulottunga was the legitimate successor of Vengi, but he saw an opportunity in the chola country to take over the place vacated by Rajamahendra. This made him allow Vijayaditya to continue in the throne. Fifteen years after that Vijayaditya died. Chellur plates continue to say that Kulottunga’s son ascended the Vengi throne after that. In the year 1088 (we will be proving this date later), Kulottunga’s son Vikrama, then known as Vira Choda ascended the Vengi throne. By the time he reached the 21st year of rule, Kulottunga got the audacity to say that he shifted to Chola country desiring the Chola throne in 1070. The courage to say this openly had come because Krimikantha Chola was nearing his end caused by a painful and awful affliction to his throat and there were no contenders from the direct chola family to claim the throne. By 1109, all the sons and grandsons mentioned in Table 1 seemed to have died!! 

What a terrible loss within a few decades for the Cholas who spent most of their time in war fields ever since Rajendra Chola I took up the throne.
Now a discussion on Table 2.

·       Vikrama, the son of Kulottunga I recognises Rajamahendra but continues the legacy with Virarajendra, followed by Avani Kaatthon. It was only after the end of Avani Kaatthon, Kulottunga I had taken over the rule of Gangaikonda Cholapuram. This is a crucial point. This implies that after the death of ‘Avani Kaatthon’ (Krimikantha Chola), Kulottunga had ascended the throne as king of kings. This explains why his first ever inscription from Gangaikinda Cholapuram appears only in CE 1111, exactly the year we deduced for the return of Ramanuja.

  • It has to be reminded here, though a repeat one, that none of the inscriptions issued by Kulottunga related him to Gangaikonda Cholapuram, the capital city of the Chola until his 41st regnal year (CE 1111). He has issued some orders sitting on the Vanadhirajan-seat in Rajendra Cholan Hall within the inner apartments of his palace at Vikrama Cholapuram in his 42nd regnal year.[li] This was part of Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Direct reference to Gangaikonda Chola puram comes in an inscription of his 49th regnal year only.[lii]  On the other hand some of the grants were issued from Kanchi in the earlier regnal years.[liii]
·       Kulottunga named his first child born to Madhurantaki, daughter of his uncle Rajendra II as Rajaraja Mummadi Chola only. This child was born after he took over co-regency of Chola country with base at Kanchi. This name is known from Chellur plates.

·       Kulottunga’s son was born by the grace of Lord Varadaraja of Kanchi, says an inscription discovered in Andhra.[liv]  His location in Kanchi for considerable time or at the time of birth of this son is indicated by this. If he was in Gangaikondapuram, he would have sought the blessings of the Shiva temple there.

·       When Kulottunga conquered Kottaru, he named the division of the land as Mummadi Cholapuram or Mummadi Cholanallur. An inscription (No 31 of 1896) says that a temple was constructed in that place during his reign. This name could not have come up to honour Rajaraja I who was by then in distant memory.  Naming after his predecessor Rajamahendra by his name Mummadi Chola looks more likely.

Fact 5: Rajamahendra died in a riot.

The 26th verse of the 6th sarga of Vikramankadeva Charitam explained earlier indicates the death of a Chola- Sūnu in an adharmic way. It was also established that Chola – Sūnu referred to a younger brother of Chola. It was further explained that it was Rajamahendra Chola. A disturbance in Kanchi caused by inimical forces, written as ‘Dushta Varga’ by Bilhana seemed to have caused the death of Rajamahendra. This had coincided with the death of Virarajendra at Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Kulottunga was assigned by the royal family of Gangaikonda Cholapuram the ruler-ship of Kanchi in the place of Rajamahendra (Mummadi Chola).

But by then Vikramaditya VI had entered the country and made his presence felt at Kanchi after making the ‘Dushta varga’ fall at his feet. He could have seen a better chance for himself to get control of Kanchi atleast. But the royal family would not have relished his plans. Until then he was the much hated enemy. So they had kept low till he left the country. As soon as he had gone quite far off, farther from Vengi, Kulottunga was sent to Kanchi to take up the rule.

On coming to know of this Vikramaditya must have felt angry as all his plans had gone awry. But he could not openly attack the country or Adhirajendra as his wife from Chola house would have played a pacifying role. So he was left with showing his anger against Kulottunga, with whose dynasty there was perpetual enmity for long in the past. Adding fuel to the fire, Kulottunga cleverly sought the help of his brother Someswara II to attack him from the rear. Vikramaditya’s advances to Kanchi had made him caught in between Kulottunga and Someswara. This predicament makes us deduce that Kulottuga had gone to Kanchi to take over the rule. This kind of sandwiched position was not possible if Kulottunga was in Gangaikonda Cholapuram.

Vikramankadeva Charitam, the text written to praise Vikramaditya can be expected to write only in terms of demeaning his opponent Kulottunga as a usurper. At the same time the text cannot go overboard by abusing the Cholan royal family or Adhirajendra, with the queen of Vikramaditya being a Chola princess. That is how the extra information on what exactly happened had gone missing from the narration.

The result was the blundered idea of the death of Adhirajendra while the death of Rajamahendra had escaped probe.

Kalingatthu Bharani gives more details on how it was in Kanchi that Kulottunga had his base. It also gives a number of hints on what went wrong in the country with the ‘Dushta varga’ having a field day that ended up with the death of Rajamahendra. However nowhere it is openly written that Rajamahendra died in a riot. It is in the oral tradition that was recorded long ago in Kanchi from which we know that a Chola king was killed in a riot between two sections called Right winged (Valangai) and Left Winged (Idangai) in the period under discussion. Those riots spread to regions near Srirangam too resulting in the complete burning down of a place named after Rajamahendra. 

Further details will be discussed in the next article as they are crucial for understanding why persecution took place.

[i] Vikramankadeva Charita”, translated by Georg Buhler, 1875, Bombay, page 35.

[ii] Takkayaga Bharani, verse 774.

[iii] Epigraphia Indica Vol 25, Page 253.

[v] Vikramankadeva Charita”, translated by Georg Buhler, 1875, Bombay, Page 35.

[vi] Vikramankadeva Charita”, translated by Georg Buhler, 1875, Bombay, Chapter 6, Verse 21.

[vii] Vikramankadeva Charita”, translated by Georg Buhler, 1875, Bombay, Chapter 6, Verse 24 & 25.

[viii]  Ibid., Chapter 5, Verse 9.

[ix]  Ibid., Chapter 5, Verse 24.

[x]  Vikramankadeva Charita”, translated by Georg Buhler, 1875, Bombay, Page 36.

[xi] KA Nilakanta Sastri, 1955, “The Colas”, University of Madras, 2nd edition, page 296.

[xii] K.V.Raman (1957), ‘Early history of the Madras region’. Page 72.

[xiii] Dr R.Nagasamy, (1970), “Gangaikonda Cholapuram”, page 9.

[xv] S.I.I., Volume III. Miscellaneous inscriptions from the Tamil country. No. 57, page 113.

[xvi] S.I.I., Volume I, No 311.

[xvii] Mysore Gazetteer,vol.2,pt.2, page 1080.

[xviii] Ramanuja Nootrandhadhi, Verse 54

[xix] Vai.Sundaresa Vandaiyar, (2009), “30 kalvettugal” page 93.

Sastri writes in his book “Colas’ that the latest inscriptions of Rajendra II mention his 12th year. That puts his end in 1063. However the above book by an archaeologist mentions 1068 as his end year. A search into the inscriptions show that for the first time 5 inscriptions in the 5th year of Virarajendra mention that he terrified Ahavamalla for the 2nd time and “fulfilled the vow of his elder brother and seized vengi Nadu”. The mention of the vow does not appear in the 4th year (previous) inscription which gives him the birudu “who saw the back of Ahavamalla three times.” On both occasions Virarajendra had defeated Ahavamalla, but only in the 5th year inscription fulfillment of his elder brother’s vow appears. This gives scope to believe that Rajendra II lived until the 4th regnal year of Virarajendra (1068) and after his death Virarajendra again defeated him and fulfilled his elder brother’s vow. Moreover the cholas of this period had anointed a co-regent while alive.  If we assume that Rajendra II died in 1063, it was in that year Virarajendra’s regnal year starts. With too many wars around, the cholas of that period anointed the next in line in their own life time.

 The contention of some historians that the elder could have been Rajamahendra is refuted on the basis that Virarajendra honoured his ‘elder brother’ Alavanthan in his 4th year (Karuvur inscriptions) in 1067. If this brother is assumed to be Rajamahendra and the title was given at the time of co-regency, then his latest year comes out to be 1070 (3rd regnal year). The 3rd regnal year of Rajamahendra tells that he saw the back of Ahavamalla at MudakkaRu (river). That was the 7th regnal year of Virarajendra when for the last time Ahavamalla was defeated. Ahavamalla drowned himself in the ocean. This was the 3rd year of Rajamendra when he was supposed to have died.(1070.) 

[xx] The Historical Inscriptions of South India (Madras University Historical series No V), Page 79.

[xxi] S.I.I., Volume IV, No 1388 (A.R.No 594 of 1912) and No 1392 (A.R.No 596 of 1912)

[xxii] Mysore Gazetteer,vol.2,pt.2, page 1082.

[xxiii] Ibid., Page 1083.

[xxiv] Mysore Gazetteer,vol.2,pt.2, page 1084.

[xxv] KA Nilakanta Sastri, 1955, “The Colas”, University of Madras, 2nd edition, page 318.

[xxvi] Mysore Gazetteer,vol.2,pt.2, page 1083.

[xxvii] Ibid., Page 318.

[xxviii] KA Nilakanta Sastri, 1955, “The Colas”, University of Madras, 2nd edition, page 332.

[xxix] KA Nilakanta Sastri, 1955, “The Colas”,  Page 337.

[xxx] Vikramankadeva Charita”, translated by Georg Buhler, 1875, Bombay, Chapter 6, Verse 24.

[xxxi] Perumpanatttrup padai. Line 80.

[xxxii] Vikramankadeva Charita”, translated by Georg Buhler, 1875, Bombay, Chapter 6, Verse 10.

[xxxiii] Ibid., Verse 21.

[xxxiv]  Ibid., Page 35.

[xxxv] Ibid., Chapter 5, Verse 26.

[xxxvi] Ibid., page 35

[xxxvii] Vikrama Deva Charita Bilhana Ed. Vishwanath Shastri Bhardwaj, published by  Benaras Hindu University

[xxxviii] Dr R.Nagasamy, (1970), “Gangaikonda Cholapuram”, page 9

[xxxix] S.I.I., Volume II, Part II, No.58.

[xl] Kalingatthu Bharani, verse 206 & 249

[xli] S.I.I.,  Vol 1, Page 60, Verse 14

[xlii] Mysore Gazetteer,vol.2,pt.2, page 1083.

[xliii] Travancore Archaeological series Vol III Part 1, page 157. Verses 73-76.

[xliv] S.I.I., Volume III. Miscellaneous inscriptions from the Tamil country. No. 28

[xlv] S.I.I., Volume III, Part I, No.29.

[xlvi] Mysore Gazetteer,vol.2,pt.2, page 1084-85.

[xlvii] Travancore Archaeological series Vol III Part 1, page 157.

[xlviii] Muthu Pichai, (2005), “Azhagar Koyil”, ASI publication, pages 128 – 131.

[xlix] Tirukkural – verse 610.

[l] S.I.I.,  Vol 1, Page 60, Verse 14

[li] Mysore Gazetteer,vol.2,pt.2, page 1113.

[lii] Ibid.

[liii] Ibid.

[liv] M.R.Sampatkumaran, M.A. “History and Ramanuja’s biography” Essay from ““Ramanuja Vani” published on the 960th birth anniversary of Ramanuja  by Sri Ramanuja Vedanta centre, Madras, 1977


Rama said...

A very heavy weight intellectual article, filled to the brim with data. Kudos to your deep dedication to dharma and scholarship.

Rajendra said...

Excellent set of articles full of real info and brilliant analysisaand consistent conclusions which dispels all the doubts.