________________
168
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VoL, XXI.
I was Madhurantaka Uttama-Chõla, who had a reign of about sixteen years (A.D. 969-85). Of Aditya II, the Parakësari who took the head of the Pandya,' we have inscriptions bearing the fifth regnal year. He was the son of Parāntaka II Sundara-Chēļa, and it is generally admitted that the period of his rule must lie between the end of Sundara-Chõļa's reign and the commencement of that of Uttama Chūļa. The latter was the son of Gandarāditya and most probably a baby at the time of his father's death! This was doubtless the reason why the succession passed to a junior branch of the family, and Ariñjaya, his son Parāntaka II, and his son Aditya succeeded one after another. After Aditya, we find Uttama-Chõļa ruling for sixteen years before the crown passed to Aditya's younger brother Rājarāja. The Tiruvālangādu plates of Rājēndra-Chēļa I seem to furnish a clue which, when interpreted witk the aid of the present inscription, enables us to trace the probable course of events. Verses 69 and 70 of these plates state that though on the death of Aditya, the people, in their eagerness to witness the destruction of the increasing darkness of Kali, desired Arumolivarman, i.e. Rājarāja, to take up the reins of government, he, the true Kshatriya, did not desire to rule his kingdom so long as his paternal uncle coveted it, and that Arumoli was made tho Yuvarāja by Madhurāntaka Uttama Chola who became king.
Though the Tiruvālangādu plates and other Choļa records tell us nothing of the manner of Aditya's death, the reference to the increasing darkness of Kali looks like a thinly veiled allusion to the state of anarchy that prevailed at the sudden demise of the late king. The people's wish to have Arumoli as king, Arumoli's unwillingness to accept the throne when his paternal uncle coveted it, and the recognition of Arumoli as heir-apparent, may be taken to indicate the troubles of a disputed succession ended by a political compromise by which Uttama-Chöļa was indeed to enjoy the fulfilment of his heart's desire, but the succession was to revert to the ruling line, viz., that of Ariñjaya. A certain Madhurāntakan Gandarādittar is found in the service of Rajaraja I, and it is probable that he was a son of Uttama-Chöļa. If this view is correct, he must be taken to have acquiesced in his exclusion from the succession which was the direct result of Arumoli having been made the Yuvarāja at the time of Uttama's accession. Apparently the choice before Arumoli after his brother's death was between & civil war with his paternal uncle and a compromise such as the one actually adopted ; Arumoli preferred the latter course, and his wisdom seems to be commended in the phrase Kshatradharmartharēdi (v. 69) of the Tiruvālangādu plates.
Of the geographical names mentioned in the inscription, Malaiyanür and Kottaiyür cannot be identified without more details : Pullamangalam may be the same as Pullamangai, a village near Pasupatiköyil, about nine miles south of Tanjore. Veņņaiyür-năļu may be the same as the subdivision of Vadagarai-Rājēndrasimha-valanādu in the sõlamandalam. If tbat is so, Vennaiyūr must be included in the list of villages in the nādu given by Venkayya.
I edit the text from a set of estampages received from the Superintendent for Epigraphy, Madras.
TEXT. 1 Svasti Sri [l*] Ko-Rājakēsarivarmmarkku yāņdu 2-ávadu Vadagarai-brahmadēyam ßri
Viranārāya[pa-chchaturvvēdimamgalattu-pperunguri-pperumakkalukku Chakravartti-brimukham Pandiyanai-ttalai-konda Karikāla-Solanai-kkooru drõhika
[1-ā] na Sõma[]................ rambi 1 South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. III, Nos. 136, 138 and 144. * South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. III, No. 204. • Ibid., p. [14). • South Indian Inscriptions, II Introduction, p. 24.
The stone is damaged here but there can be no doubt about the missing letter.
• There is a gap of seven or oight letters bero. They biust form the rest of the name of the first drohi followed by ivan.
