One king from each of the three dynasties of Tamil
lands, namely Chera, Chola and Pandyas had gone all the way from Tamil lands to
the Himalayas and engraved their symbols on the peak of the mountain. Three
questions arise from this:-
1. Who were the kings who made this journey?
2. In which part of the Himalayas did they engrave
their symbols?
3. What was the motive to make this journey and
engrave their emblems?
Taking up the first question, the names of Cheran
and Cholan kings were discussed in the previous
article. The name of the Pandyan king is not exactly known. But the
information about one such Pandyan king of the very olden days finds mention in
the Sanskrit
portion of the larger copper plates found at Sinnamanur.
The approximate date of these copper plates is 10th
century CE.
The interesting part of this is that the information
found in the first few verses on early Pandyans as seen in the above portion,
is also found in Raghu Vamsam authored by Kalidasa. In the 6th sarga of Raghuvamsam,
verses 59 to 65 are about the Pandyan king who attended the Swayamvar of Bhoja
princess Indumati. (1)
Similarity between epigraphic info and
Kalidasa’s description.
The very introduction of that king by her friend Sunanda was “UragAkhsya
purasya nAtham” – the lord of the city of snakes. This is
interpreted by scholars as Naga-pattinam or some Naga or Uraga land. But those
in the know of Tamil Sangam texts understand that this refers to the capital
city of the Pandyas of the 2nd Sangam period, known as “ālavāi” (ஆலவாய் )
having twin meanings as the “Gateway of the sea” and “snake”.
Gateway of the sea is known as “Kavāta” in Sanskrit and that name was found mentioned
by Sugreeva for the Pandyan Capital(2). This name Kavātam is also mentioned in Tamil
by the commentators of yore while referring to the capital city of the 2nd
Sangam period.
This name is similar to the name Dvāraka or Dvārāvathi.
Dvāra in Sanskrit means gate or door and Dvāraka refers to the same. In a
surprising similarity, both Kavātam (ālavāi) and Dvāraka are located at the
mouth of the sea where the land starts. Both these cities had suffered
submergence repeatedly but the newer locations next the sea were once again
called by the old name having the meaning ‘door’ or ‘gate’.
When Alavāi was lost to the sea, the Pandyans moved
very much inland and established their new capital at present day Madurai which
was given the name Alavāi only. We will discuss about this similarity in
another context later.
Alavāi also means snake in Tamil. The text by name “Thiruvilaiyādal puranam” that describes the many
sports of Lord Shiva as the guardian deity of the Pandyan rulers, has a chapter
named “Alavāi khānda”. It tells about the loss
of habitat for the Pandyan kingdom and how they moved to the new lands.
It says that Lord Shiva appeared as a Siddha and
threw out his hand band which was in the image of a snake. It grew as a long
snake and the land encircled by it was accepted as the new land where the
Pandyan king and his surviving people decided to build their new city. That
city was named as Alavāi (snake) which also has the meaning ‘gateway of the sea’.
This city was the capital of the Pandyans during the 2nd Sangam
period. The reference to city of snake in Raghu vamsam shows that the time
period of the Pandyan who attended the swayamvar was the 2nd Tamil
Sangam age.
In her introduction of this king to princess Indumati,
Sunanda repeats the views that we find in the inscription shown above. She
mentions about sage Agasthya as his priest under whose guidance the Pandyan
king had done the Aswamedha yajna. She also tells that “Lanka-adhipati” made peace with the Pandyan king fearing danger to
his people from the wonderful astra that Pandyan got from Lord Shiva. This
information appearing in Kalidasa’s work many centuries before it was written
in the copper plates of Sinanmanur could not have been a figment of imagination
but an attestation of a prevalent notion which cannot be anything other than
true.
Sunanda also speaks about the conquering of Indra’s throne by the Pandyan king. This follows her
reference to Ravana.
Though this seems to be tinged with mythical
overtones, one can not dismiss the references from multiple sources, to Indra as someone who lived in
some location on the earth, such as
# Indrajit (Ravana’s
son) getting his name for having overpowered Indra,
# Muruga (Skanda / Karthikeya),
the son of Meenakshi of Pandyan land marrying Devyani,
the daughter of Indra after rescuing Indra’s son from Sūrapadman,
# Muchukunda,
described as an early Cholan king receiving the “NāLangādi
Bhootham” from Indra for having taken care of his kingdom in Amaravathy
while Indra was on a military mission against Asuras (he later consecrated that
in Pumpuhar),
# Indra’s charioteer Matali
driving the chariot of Rama in the war against Ravana and
# Matali coming to the Asura lands in southern
hemisphere along with Narada to find a groom for his daughter and finally
choosing Sumukha,
son of Aryaka in Bhogavathi as his son in law. (3)
If we are dismissing all the above as myths, then
the Pandyan king overpowering Indra can also be a myth. But that it is not so
will be discussed later in the series.
The next interesting narrative on the Pandyan king
by Sunanda is that if Indumati chooses to marry him, she would become the “sapatni” (co-wife) of the Pandyan land in the
southern quarter (dakshinasya disha), which is surrounded by the girdle of
ocean studded with gems. This describes the Pandyan
land as his original or first wife. The same idea is found in the
inscription that the earth was the legally married wife of the Pandyan kings.
This implies that the woman who married him would be like a second wife or
sapatni!
This narration also gives an idea of the early
Pandyan land as something surrounded by the ocean like a girdle.
The
repetition of the same ideas in Kalaidasa’s work about 2000 years ago in his
work testifies the well-rooted ideas about the Pandyans throughout the land of
Bharat in those days.
What is missing in the narration of Sunanda is that
of the Pandyan king who reached the Hiamlayas to engrave his emblem. Perhaps
that was not considered as a feat for the people living in the northern reaches
of the land; or the king who did that feat belonged to the period later to the
Pandyan king who attended the Swayamvar of Indumati. But what cannot be lost
sight of is the fact that there is consistency in the narratives on early
Pandyans between what is recorded in the Pandyan genealogy and in Kalidasa’s
work.
Tamil part of the Sinnamaur
inscriptions.
The Tamil portion of the larger plates of Sinanmaur
reveals more details on the Pandyan who went to the Hiamalyas.
There are many important information in this passage
as follows:
# an early Pandyan having caused
the quick return of the sea by throwing a javelin – which is mentioned in no less than 5 texts, including some Sangam
texts.
# founding of the city of Madura and building a wall around it which as per texts was done
to protect the city from inundation (thereby indicating the location of the
first ever city of Madura in an area surrounded by
water).
# an early Pandyan king gaining expertise in both Tamil and Sanskrit to become
foremost among the scholars, thereby implying that Sanskrit existed in deep
southern lands surrounded by ocean.
# a Pandyan king having taken
part in a hill-battle (the English translation does not do justice to
the words used, “Maharatia” and Malai-kaLam”. The reference to Malai-kaLam is
about a battle on a mountain).
# a Pandyan king securing
the release of Arjuna from a Vasu – a hitherto unknown and unexplored
story involving Arjuna.
# getting Mahabharata translated
into Tamil – a text which exists till today.
# a later reference to Madhura where Sangam was
established, perhaps indicating the founding of present
day Madurai where the 3rd and the last Sangam Assembly was
held.
The main inputs for ascertaining the name of the
king who engraved emblem on the Himalayas comes from three references:
(1) A Pandyan
king won the battle at Pāli / Pāzhi (பாழி
in Tamil) that gave him the title “Panchavan” (பஞ்சவன்).
(2) A Pandyan king drove his enemies to the forests
so that they might be scorched up.
(3) A Pandyan king engraved the emblem of all the
three dynasties on the Himalayas, thereby indicating his authority over all the
lands that were once under the Cholas and Cheras.
These three references collectively point out to
one, whose name is Nedumaran
and praised with 23 different titles in a compilation called “PāNdikkovai”
Source of Pandikkovai.
Uniqueness of Pandikkovai is that all the 326 verses
of this compilation were originally quoted in a commentary for a text called ‘Iraiyanaar Kalaviyal’(5). No one knows who the composer was nor does
anyone know when they were composed. But the context of those verses which are
in the nature of a love affair between a couple reveals a particular time
period when king Nedumaran was the ruler. There is uniformity in the
description of the events surrounding Nedumaran that it looks that these verses
were part of an olden composition – done prior to the period when the
commentary for Irayanar Kalaviyal was written, some 2000 years ago. These
verses that appeared as quotations were later compiled as a “Kovai” (means
arranged in a systematic way as how beads are arranged to form a garland) by
taking the name of the king Pandya as “Pandi-k-kovai”
Both these two compositions, namely the Commentary
for Iraiyanaar KaLaviyal and Pandikkovai carry immense importance as they
contain rare historical elements that go back in time more than 10,000 years
ago.
IRaiyanaar KaLaviyal.
Taking up Irayanaar Kalaviyal first, the
commentator, the famous Sangam age poet Nakkeeran has
narrated in his work, the duration of all the 3 Sangam
periods in number of years, the names of kings in whose period the Sangam Eras
began and ended, the number of poets who had inaugurated their compositions in
each Era and names of important compositions of these Eras and also the names
of some of the poets and names of kings who contributed to Sangam literature.
It is a pity that this text is not at all circulated
among the people, mainly because they contain information that the Breaking
India forces cannot stomach.
Their foremost criticism of this commentary is that
it contains Sanskrit words, most of them nouns
and proper nouns. But least they realise that even the very name of the
progenitor idol of the Pandyans namely Meenaskhi,
is a mix of Tamil- Sanskrit. Aakshi in Meenakshi is not a Tamil word.
Her husband, whom Pandyans and others reverentially
called as Iraiyanaar (meaning God) was Soma Sundareswara
which is also not a Tamil word. Over time this name became Chokkanatha, but again Natha in this name is not
Tamil.
Even the king under whose president ship this
commentary was inaugurated did not have a Tamil name. He was Ugra Peru Vazhuthi. Ugra in this name is not Tamil.
The jurist for this commentary was one “Urutthira Sanman”. This name is nothing but a Tamilised
form of Rudra-Janman, a Sanskrit word. Uritthira Sanman was an incarnation of ‘Kumara swamy” (Muruga) as per this commentary. This
name Kumaraswamy being a Sanskrit name, the critics doubt the antiquity of this
commentary saying that this work was a later work with Sanskrit words
intercepted into it.
There are other criticisms too undermining the
antiquity of this work. One is that this work contains a passage that says the
names of people to whom this work was taught. The original composer Nakkeeran
taught to his son, Keeran KoRRan.
Keeran KoRRan taught it to DenUr KizhAr.
DenUr KizhAr taught it to Padiyan KoRRan.
Padiyan KoRRan taught it to Selvatthaasiriyar.
Selavatthaasiriyar taught it to Perunchuvanaar.
Perunchuvanaar taught it to MaNalooraasiriyar.
Like this the list goes on.
This gives an opinion that this commentary was not
the original one but written by someone later at a later date.
But this criticism cannot undermine the information
contained in the commentary.
The commentary originally written by Nakkeeran had
been preserved from generation after generation or through many teachers (as
most of the names contain the suffix ‘aasiriyar’ which means teacher) and that
lineage had been added when they had passed on the commentary to others.
The antiquity of the Sangam Eras as found in this
commentary is something that demolishes any theory of Aryan invasion or
Dravidian displacement or exclusivity of Tamil society or developing a
narration of Tamil roots in Elam or Srilanka. This makes the Tamil speaking
Breaking India forces to deny the religious leanings of these texts (which is
Hindu only) treating them as later additions or interpolations.
The progenitor of the concept of Tamil Sangam was Sundareswara, the husband of Meenakshi. He was
regarded as Lord Shiva himself by the Pandyans.
Their son was Ugra Kumara
who was mentioned in the inscriptions quoted above as one who stopped the
surging ocean waves by throwing his javelin.
He was none other than Muruga
who was later deified as Karthikeya. He was the 2nd king to have
presided over the 1st Sangam Era. He was perhaps the first ever
person who once lived on this earth, to have been elevated as a God.
Nekkeeran, the commentary writer had written that his
commentary on the sutras written by none other than Iraiyanar Himself (Lord
Shiva) was approved by Kumara Swamy, son of Lord Shiva.
The background of how Lord Shiva came into
the picture here is this:
(The commentary describes this background).
There was a time when a severe drought struck the
Pandyan land. People had left the land due to draught. Then it rained after 12
years of drought which brought normalcy to the land. With routine life having
been restored, the king (unnamed) wanted to bring back education / literary
works. So he sent out for all scholars to come back to his kingdom to re-establish
the literary discourse. Tamil grammar has three classifications such as letters
(ezhutthu), word (sol) and Meaning / substance (poruL). The olden grammar book
of Tholkappiyam has these three as separate chapters. People had developed
expertise in any one or all of these. The king wanted the scholars in these
three fields to congregate in his kingdom.
This kind of description shows that a time existed
in the Pandyan land when the literary atmosphere could not be sustained thanks
to a severe drought. Experts got scattered out and with them preservation of
basic works were also lost. Calling for scholars in the three parts of Grammar
shows that even Tholkappiyam,
the work of Grammar was lost at that time.
It so turned out that only those well versed in the
grammar of Letters and Words reached his kingdom and there was none having the
knowledge of Porul (substance). This gave rise to a situation of gloom around
the country. People were praying to Lord Shiva, the progenitor of the tradition
of Sangam, to get someone to establish this part of grammar. Lord Shiva, the
guardian deity of the Pandyan race decided to get a solution by making a work
by himself and got it hidden his seat in his temple. This is the work “KaLaviyal” – on the Agam / inner or emotional side of
life of people.
The priest who had never cleaned the under-part of
the seat of the Lord, happened to clean it one day and recovered this work.
This was brought to the notice of the king and it was ascertained that the Lord
Himself had written this work in 60 sutras.
Then came the next task of finding the meaning of
these sutras. While no one could give a convincing commentary, the people and
the king once again went back to the temple praying for a way out. It was heard
later (through akaash vaaNi) that Urutthira Sanman,
the Uppoorik kizhaan must be made the judge to pick out the best commentary.
The commentary which makes him shed tears and raised goose bumps, must be
accepted as the best commentary.
By this test, Nakkeeran’s commentary was adjudged as
the best commentary for Irayanaar Kalaviyal – a text that was given by Shiva himself
and approved by an incarnation of Kumaraswamy!
This kind of a background for this work is something
that this section of Tamils cannot accept or propagate whereas the fact is all
the texts Inaugurated in the Sangam Assembly had witnessed an element of
supernatural or divine approval.
For example, the famous compilation called “Thiruvalluva Maalai” (a garland of verses in praise of
Thiruvalluvar) begins with a verse from Akash VaaNi approving the same
Urutthira Sanman to sit as a jurist for this compilation. Perhaps a poet who
heard it recorded it as a verse.
This is followed by an approval by Goddess Saraswathi. The 2nd verse of
Thiruvalluva Maalai is attributed to this Goddess. The 3rd verse is a
verse attributed to none other than Irayanaar (Lord
Shiva) who started the tradition of Sangam. Then comes the verse by the presiding
Pandyan king Ugra Peru Vazhuthi!
As we see the same trend recorded in the famous
compilation of Sangam age “Thiruvalluva Maalai” , any criticism of Nakkeeran’s commentary
on Irayanaar Kalaviyal on the lines of religiosity, mythology or interpolation
of Sanskrit words is unfounded.
The example of Thiruvalluva Maalai in this context
shows that Thiruvalluvar lived at a time that far preceded the last Sangam assembly
that took place 2000 years ago, as this compilation contains verses of praise
on Thiruvalluvar by poets of Sangam Era of different times in the past.
The presence of Urutthira Sanman as the jurist in
the Sangam Assembly presided by king Ugra Peru Vazhuthi for both the
compositions – one a commentary (Irayanaar Kalaviyal Urai) and another a
compilation of verses composed by different poets in the past on the greatness
of Thirukkural and Thiruvalluva Maalai – shows the
revival after a drought of 12 years had indeed happened during the rulership of
Ugra Peru Vazhuthi only.
One of the notable causalities of the drought was
perhaps the grammar work Tholkappiyam. With scholars and teachers having left
to different places for survival, texts like Tholkappiyam were temporarily
lost, it seems. It is also possible to assume that Thirukkural also was lost in
parts or else why was the need to compile Thiruvalluva maalai?
The assembly under Ugra Peru vazhuthi had gone all
out to gather the lost or forgotten verses of yore and made attempts to record
them. Perhaps the commentaries for many of the Sangam, texts like Pura nanuru
were made during this period of reclamation. In due course they had reclaimed
Tholkappiyam also.
The occasional appearance of later day influence on
some of the works might be due to the fact that a vast majority of them were
restored during the last Assembly under Ugra Peru Vazhuthi.
The detailed reference to the duration et al of the
three Sangam Eras in Nakkeeran’s commentary is perhaps the result of an earnest
attempt to document the old history which might have found a place in other
works that are now lost.
While we will be doing the exact dating of this
king, Ugra Peruvazhuthi in another article, it’s time we concentrate on
Pandikkovai, which speak about the King Ko- Nedumaran who won the Cheras and
Cholas and many others and engraved their emblems along with his own on top of
the Himalayas.
References:
(1) Raghu Vamsa, sarga -6, verses 59 to 65
(2) Valmiki Ramayana – 41- 19 “कवाटम् पाण्ड्यानाम्”
(3) Mahabharata Udyoga parva – chapters 98 to 103
(4) PAndikkOvai verses with meaning in English and
Tamil:- https://pandikkovai.com/about/
(5) IRaiyanaar Kalaviyal Urai http://www.tamilvu.org/library/l0N00/html/l0N00ind.htm
(To be continued)
