________________
158
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(Voz, XXIV.
Kulasēkhara. The hostility between the parties of Vira-Pāņdya and Kulasēkhara continued in the reign of Rājādhirāja's successor Kulottunga III (A.D. 1178-1217). The position was the same. Vira-Pandya, who was now joined by his son, was supported by the Sinhalese, while VikramaPāņdya, probably the son of Kulasēkhara, applied to and obtained the help of the Chõļas. The earliest mention of this war in the records of Kulõttunga III is dated in the 4th year of his reign,' i.e., in A.D. 1182. It states that the son of Vira-Pāņdya was defeated with the allied forces of the Sinhalese, that he was deprived of his kingdom and crown and forced to flee from the field of battle, that his country and crown were taken by the Chola and given to VikramaPandya, and that a pillar of victory was set up in the Pandya capital Madura. Later records tell us that Vira-Pāņdya, sometime after his first flight, revolted and tried another chance with Kulottunga III but was defeated again at a place called Nettür.8 The treatment meted out to Vira-Pāndya and his son in this war by the Chola king was anything but satisfactory. The Pāņdya queen was made to enter the harem of the Chõļa and when the Pāņdya king himself, along with his ally the Chēra, came, bowed, and sat down at the foot of the Chola throne, the Chola king placed his feet on his head and dismissed him. It is impossible to expect the defeated party to put up with the extreme humiliation and insult meted out to him, for any length of time. Now, if there was a counter-invasion of the Chola country, directed against the very sovereign that behaved in a most remorseless manner in the treatment of a fallen adversary appearing before him with all humility, it would not be difficult to find out who the invader must have been, and what the cause of the invasion was. The invader Māravarman Sundara-Pāņdya I, who, in the last years of Kulõttunga III, did unto him and his son all that had been done to the latter's Pandya adversary a few years previously, might in all probability be the unnamed son of Vira-Pāņdya, who, along with his father, was ignominiously treated by Kulõttunga III. In our opinion, it will be extremely unnatural, and impossible to a high degree, that Māravarman Vikrama-Pāņdya, a weakling who owed his very being as a monarch to Kulottunga III, or a son of his, would, without any cause, ever rise against the Chola benefactor. Thus, it will be seen that the civil war begun by Parākrama-Pāņdya in about A.D. 1167 was pursued by his son Vira-Pandya, and pushed to a decisive end by Māravarman Sundara-Pāņdya I. The other hostile party counted Kulasēkhara and his son Māravarman Vikrama-Pandya and perhaps one other member. In the account of the Pandyan civil war that has come down to us, both from the Sinhalese source and from South Indian epigraphs, we are able to see very clearly that the side of Parākrama-Pandya,-represented mostly by Vira-Pāndya, his son, and Māravarman Sundara-Pandya I.-was very resourceful, was of undaunted spirit and performed noble deeds of valour, while that of Kulasēkhara, represented by himself and Māravarman Vikrama-Pāndya, was weak to a degree and had to be propped up again and again by the Cholas.
1 Four records of Rajadhiraja II refer to the war of Pandya sucoession. They are dated in the 6th, 8th and 12th years of his reign. While the earlier two state that the Cholas prevented the Pāņdya country from becoming a part of the kingdom of Ceylon by helping Kulasēkhara with men and money, the two others dated in the 12th year are said to add that Kulasēkhare turned inimical to the Chola who deposed him and placed Vira-Pandya on the throne (above, Vol. XXI, p. 186). If this is true the enmity does not seem to have lasted long, for early in the reign of Kulottunga III we find the Cholas supporting this party of Pandyas against the very Vira-Pandya.
18.. 1., Vol. VI, No. 436. The date of this inscription is not given at the beginning as usual. It registers an order to the effect that what was granted in the 4th year may be incised on stone, and generally such records are relegated to the dates specified.
8.1. 1., Vol. III, Nos. 87 and 88.
