Previous article: Major
flaw in Vedveer Arya's chronological history of ancient Tamilagam
Apart from the major flaw regarding the number of
Nakkirar-s in Sangam Era, there are many other flaws found in Vedveer Arya’s
paper in The
Chronological History of Anceint Tamilagam (From 11226 BCE to 5th Century CE)
For example in the abstract of his paper he says,
“The Pāndya king Ukkiraperu Valudi lost
his supremacy to the Cholas and the Cheras that marked the end of the third
Sangam era.”
But the fact is that there is no proof from any
quarter, literary or otherwise to say that Pandyan King Ugra Peruvaɻuti lost
his supremacy to Cholas and Cheras.
In the next line he says,
“The rise of the Chola King Karikāla has
ended the supremacy of Pāndyas.”
The fact is that there is no proof to substantiate
this claim. Karikāla did make many victories but there is no way to say that
Pandyan supremacy was ended by him. His major victory was against the Cheran king Peruncheraladhan who, however was more
eulogised than Karikāla in Purnanuru 66.
Moreover Pandyan king Nedunjeɻiyan who ordered death
for Kovalan seems to be later than Karikāla as per Silappadhikaram. The Pandyan
kingdom had continued with glory after Karikāla and during Cheran king Senguttuvan’s
times. Therefore it is not correct to say that Karikāla ended the supremacy of
Pandyans.
Like this the list of fallacies goes long, but in
this article his claims on Kharavela are being challenged.
In the abstract he says,
“The Kalinga king Khāravela invaded and
annexed Tamilnadu during his 11th and 13th regnal years.”
Fact:
There is lot more research needed about Kharavela’s
impact on Tamil lands. From the available sources, it can be said that he had
very less role in Tamil lands other than assisting Cheran king Perum Cheral
Irumborai in defeating Adyamān Nedumān Anji.
This is made out from Line 11 of the Hathigumpha inscriptions which says that
Kharavela broke up the confederation of Tamira countries of 113 years.
End of Velir Confederation.
The confederation of Tamira countries of 113 years
looks like the confederation of Veḷir kings. The Veḷir kings were not tolerated
by the three dynasties of Tamil lands towards the end of the 3rd Sangam
Era. We often come across groups of Veḷirs in war with main Tamil dynasties. For
example Pandyan Nedunjeɻiyan who won at Talaiyalanganam faced 5 Veḷirs together
in the war along with Chola and Chera king. Two were beheaded, as per the
account of Sinnamanur inscriptions, but they were not Chola or Chera. That
means only the Veḷirs had lost their life and kingdom.
Similarly, the Cholan king Karikāla defeated 9 kings
of small territories which could be a reference to Veḷir territories.
The biggest catch was Adyamān. Known as Satyaputro Adyamān
Nedumān Anji (of Jambai inscriptions) this king who ruled from Thagadur (in present-day
Dharmapuri in Tamilnadu) was killed by the Cheran king Perum Cheral
Irumborai. From his location in Chera land, how the Cheran king managed to come
all the way to Adyaman's country in Dharmapuri of Tamilnadu and and won
over him is a mystery that can be solved if we take into consideration
Kharavela's role in the war against Veḷirs.
The mutual understanding between Chera and Kharavela
comes from another hint found in Hathigumpha inscriptions.
This is the first line where Kharavela tells about
himself as
The Airena identity refers to Airai cult and Airai
worship. There was a hill called Airai in
the Western ghats where the female deity called Koṛṛavai – (கொற்றவை
- a form of Durga who was worshiped before and after a war) was housed. This
hill was a proud possession
of the Chera kings. In no less than half a dozen places in the Sangam text of Pathiṛṛup
patthu (பதிற்றுப் பத்து) on Chera kings, this hill and
the deity are praised. (In all probability, Kollur
Mookhambikai was this deity of Airai in Sangam Age). Kharavela calling himself as bound to
"Chetha raja" could refer to his allegiance to Chera kings. The
"Airena" refers to his connection to Airai. He was also a Veḷ,
as seen from his name Khara – Vela. The ‘Airena’ and ‘Cheta raja’ point to the
genetic connection between Kharavela (Kalinga dynasty) and Chera dynasty.
This connection establishes how Adyamān could have
been defeated by the Cheran king with the help of Kharavela. Both the victors
had got their victory over Adyamān recorded for posterity. The 8th decade
of Pathiṛṛup patthu is in praise of Cheran’s victory over Adyamān. The
11th line of Hathigumpha inscription highlights the same victory
from Kharavela’s angle. This kind of expression of shared victory is seen in
the victory of Cheran Senguttuvan over Yavanas
while the same is said for Gautamuputra Satakarni
also. The mutual friendship between them and the mutual help expressed in
Silappadhikaram between the two make it known that the Cheran army joined the
army of Gautamiputra Satakarni in winning the Yavanas though it is not explicitly
recorded in any text.
The victory over Adyamān by Kharavela is expressed
in 11th line of the Hathigumpha inscription. It says that Kharavela
shattered the confederation of Tamira kings that was existence for 1300 years
and ploughed their lands with asses to grow "Pithumda"!
L.11 - कलिंग पुवराज निवेसितं पिथुडं गधवनंगलेन कासयति [।।]जनपद भावनं च तेरसवस सत कतं भिदति तमिर देह संघातं [।।] बारसमेच वसे ..... वितासयति उतरापध राजनो [ततो]
Pithunda is Pithu (पितु) + Urundai - a
combination of Sanskrit and Tamil words meaning food balls. The Tamil word
Urundai is corrupted as "Undai" or "Unda" or
"mudde" in
Kannada. This refers to ragi balls. The Ragi balls made of Millets is a popular
food in this part of Tamilnadu even today. This place (Dharmapuri) has
been a neglected or abandoned region even since the fall of Adyamān.
Ploughing the lands of the enemy after winning his
land is a popular culture in Tamilnadu as per Sangam texts. In the case of
severe enmity (which was more to do with the different cult followed by the
enemy) – mostly in resistance to Vamachara cult
which Tamils did not accept.
This enmity
continues till today - without knowing this cause – and is termed as caste
clashes with caste Hindus. (This is a different topic which I am not divulging
here) After killing the enemy large scale massacres were done, the habitats
were set on fire, waterways were poisoned, fertile lands were spoiled and
ploughed with asses to grow (Veḷ varagu) millets – {that was consumed in drought years as Ragi balls (Pithunda)}.
Even temples were broken.
Karikal Cholan
did it; Pandyan Nedunjeɻiyan of Sangam age (Talaiyalanganam) did it. There is
inscriptional evidence to show that it happened in the Kongu belt in 12th and
13th centuries CE as this region was settled by migrants ever
since 1500 BCE. The last recorded such incident was done by Sundara Pandiyan
who was famously known as "Maduraiyai meetta Sundara
Pandiyan" (the
one who restored Madurai). Madurai Meenakshi temple was in the control of Kali
worshippers before his times. For long, Kali, Kaḷaamukha and Kabalika worship were not accepted in
Tamil lands. The list included Jains and Buddhist and Vamachara also
which was followed in Indus region. In the case of enmity with these people,
extreme intolerance was shown.
Kharavela’s
personal enmity with Adyamān and Veḷir confederation could have come from the difference
in the cults they followed. Kharavela is all probability can be said to have followed
Vamachara. Vamachara was native to Indus region and the Indus signs seen in
Hathigumpha inscription is proof of Kharavela’s Vamachara- leanings.
Two Indus signs arrow-marked.
The same signs in Indus seal M1356
The above discourse is given to show that people
called Veḷir- s of the Indus Saraswathi region who had settled in Tamil regions
at the end of decline of Indus region met their end 2000 years ago. The high
profile migrants such as the ones in west of Tamilnadu (Mysore – Irungovel)
were connected with Krishna's lienage (Purananuru 201). The Vels of
north Tamilnadu such as Adyamān were connected with Gangetic and Ikshvaku
people (Purananuru 99 & 392). Pari of Parambu hills was killed. All these Vels met their end by the
end of Sangam age, which has been hailed as breaking the confederation of Tamira kings.
The main player in that defeat was Cheran king Perum
Cheral Irumborai assisted by Kharavela. The Tamil dynasties had continued even
after that.
The reference to the Pandyan king bringing tributes
to Kharavela in the 13th line of the inscription could refer to the
subsidiary level to which Pandyans were pushed into, but they were not
replaced. The dynasty had continued and perhaps bought peace with Kharavela.
This is not so with Cholas as there is reference to
Kalinga country paying tributes to Cholas for centuries in the first millennium
of the Common Era. From the text Kalingatthu Barani (கலிங்கத்து
பரணி)
it is known that Kulotthunga Chola I sent an
army to Kalinga to punish them for having failed to pay the dues to the Cholas.
The subsidiary state of Kalinga to Cholas could have started from Karikāla
times. Karikāla made successful northern expedition upto Himalayas during his
reign. There was no resistance on the way. It implies that Kalingas agreed to
be subsidiary to them.
Therefore Vedveer Arya’s contention that Kharavela
invaded Tamil lands is not supported by facts.
Kharavela and Satakarni.
Kharavela’s relationship with Satakarni is also
misunderstood.
In line 4 of Hathigumpha inscriptions, it is said
that Kharavela sent his armies to the west ‘disregarding Satakamini’
(Satakarni).
The implication of this line is that he didn’t subjugate
Satakarni nor was there a friendship with Satakarni. But he could move his
troops through the dominion of Sarakarni without inviting any hostilities. This
can happen if there was a third party who was a friend of both or superior to
both and ensured passage for Kharavela’s army through Satakarni’s land without
trouble. This is being said on the basis of the political equation in this
region during Cheran king Senguttuvan’s times. Senguttuvan won Kalinga during
his first expedition to North India to do final rites for his father in river
Ganga. And Satakarni was a close friend of Cheran king.
But there is no scope to assume that Kharavela was a
contemporary of Senguttuvan. The above equation is written to highlight that an
understanding was there among the three political powers.
Unrealistic date of Kharavela by Vedveer
The erroneous date of history of Tamilagam is partly
contributed by the date of Kharavela used by Vedveer Arya. Based on his another article ‘The
date of Kharavela , Vedveer assigns the ascent of Kharavela to throne in
1031 BCE. This date was derived from yet another article by him on “The date of
Buddha Nirvana”. But none of them match with the dating of Hathigumpha
inscription by other historians who are unanimous in their date of this inscription
around 2nd century BCE.
The basic feature of Hathigumpha inscription is that
the script is Brāhmī, the language is Prākrit, the signs are from
Indus and the king at whose behest it was inscribed is believed to be a Jain. Epigraphia
Indica (1983:73) says “It is quite possible that the record was composed by a
Jaina monk from Gujarat or the Maharashtra...”
Vedveer Arya is also of the opinion that Kharavela
was a follower of Jainism. Based on this he interprets Nandaraja in the
inscription as the one coming in Jaina chronology and assigns the date 1129 BCE
to him and links Kharavela to that time period in his article on the date of
Kharavela.
But in the current paper under discussion he says,
“The Hathigumpha inscription clearly indicates
that Kharavela re-established the Buddhism in Tamilnadu and gave land grants to
Arhats i.e. Buddhists.”
This is not in sync with his earlier version of
Kharavela being a Jaina.
In the final analysis his date of historical chronology
of ancient Tamilagam is based on his own views on one of the names mentioned in
Hathigumpha inscription (Nandaraja) and not on any other historical inputs or
others related to the inscription. With absolutely no reference to Kharavela
destroying Tamil lands and dynasties found in Tamilnadu and Tamil literature,
his sweeping statement on Kharavela annexing Tamil territories is questionable.
No comments:
Post a Comment