I happened to read a forward from a face book entry
made by Sri Vedveer Arya on “Dravida Shishu and the date of Adi Shankara” in
which he derived the date of Tirujnana Sambhandar from his association with Ninraseer Nedumaran alias Koon Pandyan (original
pronunciation is Goon Pandyan, where ‘goon’ means bent or curved back).
According to him Koon Pandyan belonged to 1300-1200 BCE and he was the
successor of Ukkira Peru Valudi (Ugra Peruvaɻuti)
to whom he assigns the date 1276 BCE.
Ugra Peruvaɻuti was
the last patron of the last and the 3rd Sangam assembly and the date
assigned to him has great ramification for dating the Indian past as he was the
last king of a very long Tamil Sangam era that spanned for nearly 10,000 years!
Date of Ugra Peruvaɻuti deserves to be called as a cut-off date which must fit
well with cross-referential dates before, after and during his period. Miffed
by this date given by Vedveer Arya, I started to look for the exact context
where he has written this and came across his paper “The
Chronological History of Ancient Tamilagam (From 11226 BCE to 5th Century CE)”
where I found not just one but many incorrect statements on information found
in Sangam texts and challengeable dates of kings. Fearing that a refutation of
all of them would make this article too lengthy, I decided to concentrate on
the date of Ugra Peruvaɻuti alone here, while reserving the rest in different
articles later.
The major source of information about Ugra Peruvaɻuti
comes from the commentary by Nakkīrar for a text called “Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ”, supposed to have been authored
by Lord Shiva himself. The first flaw is that Vedveer Arya pre-supposes the
existence of two Nakkīrar-s and attributes this commentary to Nakkīrar II while
attributing some Sangam poems in the name of Nakkīrar to Nakkīrar I and some
others to Nakkīrar II. This flaw is an obvious outcome of his non- acquaintance
with the original commentary in Tamil and his dependence on secondary works on
this commentary with the result that he is echoing the opinion of the writers
of the secondary books and not the commentary by Nakkīrar himself.
For, in the original text by Nakkīrar, it is well
made out that there was only one Nakkīrar and all the Sangam poems in the name
of Nakkīrar was by the same person who wrote this commentary as well. In the
very beginning of the commentary Nakkīrar reveals this while describing the
circumstances that made him write this commentary.
Only one Nakkīrar
Nakkīrar begins his commentary fulfilling the
established norms of Sangam publications, such as stating the name of the text,
the nature of the text – whether primary or secondary, the topic of the text
and to whom it was given (read out) – the patron king, the land and the
listeners. In describing to whom it is given, he narrates the background of
this text.
Once there was a drought for 12 years in the Pandyan
land with the result that people had moved out of the country to find greener
pastures. At the end of 12 years, it rained well and the conditions for living
returned to normalcy. The King Ugra Peruvaɻuti called upon all the people who
had left the country to come back. He also desired to constitute the assembly
of Sangam, and revive the system of study and development of Tamil literature.
Heeding his call, many Tamil scholars returned with whatever texts they had in
hand.
In those days scholars had specialized in certain
topics and were not in the know of everything of Tamil grammar and literature. This
is known from the information in the commentary that of all the three parts of
grammar (eɻutthu / letters, sol / word and poruḷ / meaning), only eɻutthu and
sol were available. (This grammar work must have been Tolkāppiyam, though there
is no explicit reference to it in the commentary). None who returned to the
country was an expert in Poruḷ Adhikaram. This caused anguish to the king and
the scholars. Lord Shiva, the patron deity of the Pandyans decided to put an
end to their anguish.
One day the priest at the Shiva temple (could have
been Madurai Meenakshi temple – mentioned as ‘Devar kōttam’ in the commentary)
who normally would not clean the under-part of the seat of the Lord, thought of
cleaning it and to his surprise found some copper plates lying there. This was
brought to the notice of the king and it was found to contain Tamil verses on
the topic, Poruḷ’. This made the people think that the Lord Himself had written
the work to complete the missing part of grammar. The topic was found to be
‘Agam’ (pertains to personal and love life ) and therefore this work came to be
called as “Agapporuḷ”. As Shiva was known as “Iṟaiyanār” (meaning God) in Tamil,
this work acquired the name “Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ”.
(It must be mentioned here that Vedveer
postulates two Iṟaiyanār-s, implying that there were two Shiva-s! One who gave
a verse to Dharumi which is found in Kurunthogai and the other, the composer of
this Agapporuḷ. If we accept his logic, there were three Shiva-s, the 3rd
one being the earliest of all and was the founder of 1st Sangam era.
But Vedaveer finds a way to partially rein back this run-away absurdity by
claiming that this Agapporuḷ was originally written in the 1st
Sangam age by Iṟaiyanār. So another absurdity encased among many such
absurdities – and this one claiming that a text found in the last Sangam
assembly of the last Sangam era was written in the first Sangam assembly of the
first Sangam era, perhaps as the first composition! Nothing can pale out this
absurdity – not even his claim that Tolkāppiyam was ‘influenced by Bharata’s
Nātyashāstra and Mānava Dharmashāstra’ – despite the fact that texts like
Tolkāppiyam state in categorical terms what they talk about.)
Continuing from the paragraph preceding the above, the
task of finding the meaning of the sutras of this work commenced. With no one
giving a convincing commentary, Nakkīrar along with other poets went to the
king and requested him to find a suitable judge or teacher (kāraṇika – this
is the word written in the commentary) to assess the commentaries presented.
But the king was annoyed at this request and what he told them reveals the identity
of Nakkīrar. The King said that all the 49 were unparalleled
poets of the Sangam assembly; how could he find someone superior to them in
judging their work. (1)
Prior to this Nakkīrar writes in the commentary that
49 poets contributed to the 3rd Sangam among whom he mentioned his
own name. The king was obviously referring to all the poets who contributed until
then to the 3rd Sangam era. Nakkīrar’s name does not appear in any
other Sangam era.
As the anguished king and others were praying at the
temple to find a way out, it so happened around midnight on one of those days
they heard a divine voice (āakāsh vāṇi) telling them to invite one “Urutthira
Sanman” (Tamilised form of Rudra Janman), the Uppurik kiɻān, (the
resident of Uppur) a re-incarnation of Kumaraswamy (Lord Muruga, born due to a
curse) to assess the work as Kāraṇika. The commentary which makes him shed
tears and raises goose bumps, must be accepted as the best commentary.
The assembly was constituted and many people presented
their commentaries. Only two poets made an impact on the Kāraṇika. One was the
famous Marudaniḷa Nāganār and the other was Nakkīrar. The Kāraṇika
felt the impact for every word of Nakkīrar, which was not so with the other
poet and this made him choose Nakkīrar’s commentary as the best one.
This information given in this work makes it known
that there was only one Nakkīrar in the entire Sangam period and he was a
contemporary of the king of the last Sangam assembly. He was the same person
who shot into fame for having dared Lord Shiva (Iṟaiyanār) Himself when he appeared to defend his poem
given to Dharumi (Dharmi). That poem is found in a Sangam compilation called
Kurunthogai.
The confusion about the identity of Nakkīrar had
come up among some researchers due to the reason that a list of teachers is
given in the commentary itself through whom this text had gone from one hand to
another. Nakkīrar taught this commentary to his son who in turn taught it to
another. Thus goes the list. This made some researchers to suggest that the
commentary was written by another person by name Nakkīrar who appeared at a
much later date than original Nakkīrar.
But the fact is that the list does not contain the
same name Nakkīrar again. The list shows the persons to whom the commentary has
gone. At every successive generation or after the commentary had been mastered
by a teacher to be able to impart it to others, his name had been added in the
list while the original commentary had been retained as it was, while making
copies of it.
The problem with two Nakkīrar-s.
The issue with two Nakkīrar-s is that Vedveer Arya
attributed two different time periods for two Nakkīrar-s. The earlier one
(Nakkīrar I), according to him was a contemporary of Pandyan king Nedunjeɻiyan
in whose honour Nakkīrar I composed
a Sangam text called Nedunalvādai. Claiming that he was many generations
earlier than Nakkīrar II, Vedveer continues to say that Nakkīrar II who wrote
commentary to Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ was also the composer of another Sangam work
called “Tirumurugatruppadai”. He based
this claim on the list of kings given by a secondary and refutable text
written in 1920 and not on any internal evidence of the Sangam texts
themselves.
In quoting this text he had made erroneous entry
that Pandyan king Nedunjeɻiyan was the 83rd king and Ugra
Peruvaɻuti was the 104th king.
His exact words are,
“Nankudi Velir Varalāru” (NVV), a Tamil
text consisting of 1035 poems written by Arumuga Nayinar Pillai speaks about
the genealogy of the Irungovel branch of Pāndya dynasty. It gives the names of
201 generations of Pāndyan kings. According to this text, Nedunchelian II was
the 83rdking and Ukkirapperu Valudi (1330-1250 BCE) was the 104th
king.
This is not true as per that text. The text mentions
them as 83rd and 84th kings – as successors – a father
and son duo which is true as per the Sangam texts. The 104th king
was Ukkira Pandyan and not Ugra Peruvaɻuti.
The dates given by Vedveer Arya are also not what
that texts says. The text gives the date 62-42 BC to Nedunjeɻiyan and 42 BC- 1
AD to Ugra Peruvaɻuti , but Vedveer pushes back the date by 1000 years, saying,
“Considering the average reign of 33
years, Nedunchelian II might have flourished around 1850-1800 BCE.”
His date for Ugra Peruvaɻuti was 1330-1250 BCE!
He has based his chronology on his own earlier work
on the date of Theravada Buddhism and Gajabahu, who was present in the
consecration of Kannagi temple by the Cheran king Senguttuvan. The date of
Seguttuvan can be cross checked with an important historical figure, namely
Sarakarni with whom the Cheran went on to conquer a Yavana king (internal
reference found in Silappadhikaram). This Satakarni was Gautamiputra
Satakarni whose date has been well established (1st century of
the Common Era).
Without going into the merits and demerits of
Vedveer’s date of Gajabahu, let me put forth the connection between the two
Pandyan kings with whom he is associating two Nakkīrar-s.
Nedunjeɻiyan was a popularly known as one
who defeated his opponents in Talaiyalanganam. In his youth he confronted a
confederation of 7 kings – 2 Tamil kings (chera and Chola) and 5 Veḷir kings
and defeated them all. The Chola king defeated in this war at Talaiyalanganam was Perunarkilli,
the one who conducted Rajasuya yajana (he had that as his title).
The interesting part is that this Cholan king was
seen in the same dais with the Pandyan king we have been talking all along,
i.e., Ugra Peruvaɻuti! The famous poetess Auvaiyar has written in her
composition that all the three kings of the three Tamil dynasties are found
together (Purananuru 367) and wished that this unity must be there at all
times. The three kings were Pandyan Ugra Peruvaɻuti, Cholan Perunarkill who did
Rajasuya yajna and the Cheran king Māri Veṇko.
This means the Cholan king defeated by Nedunjeɻiyan had
bought peace with the Pandyans and had become friendly with the successor
Pandyan king Ugra Peruvaɻuti. Apart from Sangam literature, another input comes
from epigraphy. The Sanskrit part of the bigger Sinnamanur
plates lists out the achievements of earlier Pandyans. There it mentions
the victory of a Pandyan king at Talaiyalanganam – The only king associated
with this victory was Nedunjeɻiyan that Vedveer associates with Nakkīrar I. The
inscription says that the Pandyan king cut off the heads of two kings in this
war – which was fought by 7 kings as per Sangam texts. So five kings were
spared of their life.
Nedunjeɻiyan who won the battle at Talaiyalanganam
as a small boy.
The inscriptions continue to say (in the next verse)
that Mahabharata was translated in Tamil and in subsequent verse says that
Tamil Sangam was established in Madurai. This had happened in the times of Ugra
Peruvaɻuti.
So the events between Nedunjeɻiyan and Ugra Peruvaɻuti
were just three – winning Talaiyalanganam, translation of Mahabharata and
constituting the Sangam Assembly. The survivor of the war (Cholan king) with
the former had continued to live and was spotted along with the latter (Ugra
Peruvaɻuti) by Auvaiyar. This is revealing of the fact that the Cholan king
survived the war by seeking friendly relationship with the Pandyan king Nedunjeɻiyan.
This was firmed up in Ugra Peruvaɻuti’s times perhaps by sharing the bonhomie
of constituting the Sangam assembly.
From the Cholan genealogy given in Tiruvalangadu
copper plates, it is known that the Cholan king Pernarkill had preceded
Karikal Cholan. Karikal Cholan’s daughter was married to the Cheran family and
Seguttuvan was born to her. It was Seguttuvan who consecrated Kannagi as a
deity.
The line of kings constructed from these events goes
like this:
· Pandyan
Nedunjeɻiyan who won at Talaiyalanganam = (contemporary of) = Perunarkill who
did Rajasuya.
· Perunarkill
who did Rajasuya = (contemporary of) = Ugra Peruvaɻuti who constituted the last
Sangam assembly.
· Perunarkill
who did Rajasuya was succeeded by Karikala Chola.
· Karikal
Chola’s grandson = Cheran Seguttuvan = (contemporary of) = Gautamiputra
Satakarni.
This puts in perspective the probable time period of
the last Sangam Assembly conducted by Ugra Peruvaɻuti.
The Cheran King Seguttuvan ruled for 55 years and
his expedition to Himalayas during which he teamed up with Satakarni to defeat the
Yavanas was at the fag end of his rule. Going with the date of Gautamiputra
Satakarni at the 1st century of the Common Era, it can be said that Senguttuvan’s
birth goes before or around the start of the Common Era.
This puts the date of Senguttuvan’s maternal
grandfather Karikal Chola to the last century before the Common Era.
Pernarkilli who did Rajasuya yajna, and preceded Karikal
Chola must have lived in 1st or 2nd century before the
Common Era.
From this it is deduced that the last Sangam
Assembly was convened by Ugra Peruvaɻuti sometime between 1st and 2nd
century before the Common Era.
If Nedunjeɻiyan who won the war at Talaiyalanganam about
whom Nakkīrar composed a text was the
same one mentioned in Mangulam inscriptions, then the time of Last Sangam goes
well into the 2nd century BCE as Mangulam inscriptions are dated at
3rd century BCE. That will be discussed in another article.
The bottom-line is Nakkīrar was the jewel of the
last Sangam Assembly and presented his commentary to Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ. He is
being termed as Nakkīrar II by Vedveer Arya. The same Nakkīrar wrote a poem on
the previous king Nedunjeɻiyan and Vedveer identifies him as Nakkīrar I. Such
arbitrary presentation of Sangam poets and the Sangam Era is bound to vitiate
the already mis-used and mis-interpreted poetry of Sangam Era.
Reference:
(1) From Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ
நாம் அரசனுழைச்
சென்று,
நமக்கோர்
காரணிகனைத்
தரல்வேண்டும்
என்று
கொண்டுபோந்து, அவனாற் பொருளெனப்பட்டது பொருளாய்,
அன்றெனப்பட்டது அன்றாய் ஒழியக்காண்டும்’ என்று, எல்லாரும் ஒருப்பட்டு, அரசனுழைச் சென்றார். அரசனும்
எதிர்சென்று, ‘என்னை, நூற்குப் பொருள் கண்டீரோ?’ என, ‘அது காணுமாறு
எமக்கோர் காரணிகனைத் தரல்வேண்டும்’ என, ‘போமின், நுமக்கோர்
காரணிகனை யான் எங்ஙனம் நாடுவேன்! நீயிர் நாற்பத்தொன்பதின்மர்
ஆயிற்று. நுமக்கு நிகராவார் ஒருவர் இன்மையின் அன்றே’ என்று அரசன்
சொல்லப், போந்து, கல்மாப் பலகை ஏறியிருந்து ‘அரசனும் இது சொல்லினான்,
யாம் காரணிகனைப் பெறுமாறு என்னைகொல்’ என்று சிந்திப்புழி,
கொண்டுபோந்து, அவனாற் பொருளெனப்பட்டது பொருளாய்,
அன்றெனப்பட்டது அன்றாய் ஒழியக்காண்டும்’ என்று, எல்லாரும் ஒருப்பட்டு, அரசனுழைச் சென்றார். அரசனும்
எதிர்சென்று, ‘என்னை, நூற்குப் பொருள் கண்டீரோ?’ என, ‘அது காணுமாறு
எமக்கோர் காரணிகனைத் தரல்வேண்டும்’ என, ‘போமின், நுமக்கோர்
காரணிகனை யான் எங்ஙனம் நாடுவேன்! நீயிர் நாற்பத்தொன்பதின்மர்
ஆயிற்று. நுமக்கு நிகராவார் ஒருவர் இன்மையின் அன்றே’ என்று அரசன்
சொல்லப், போந்து, கல்மாப் பலகை ஏறியிருந்து ‘அரசனும் இது சொல்லினான்,
யாம் காரணிகனைப் பெறுமாறு என்னைகொல்’ என்று சிந்திப்புழி,
