________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[Vol. XXV.
Turumā-nādu in Kāna nādu for the welfare and recovery from illness of Ulagudaiya-Nayanār. The question is who are meant by Alagapperumā! and Ulagudaiya-Nāyaṇār. At first sight it might appear that Alagapperumāļ must have been the son of Märavarman Sundara-Pāņdya I and that by the term Ulagudaiya-Näyaņār, Māravarman Sundara-Pāņdya bimself mu be meant. This is wrong. Since Alagapperumā! figures in the large Tiruppūvanam plates with the prefix Pillaiyar, there is reason to take him to be the son of Jaţāvarman Kulasekhara I. He might have been continued to be called Pillaiyār in later days also. In the plates, his high status is indicated by his having had under him an official bearing the designation * adigāram.' As Jațăvarman Kulasēkhara I was living at the time of the Kannanür inscription, we think the term Ulagudaiya-Nāyaṇār must refer to him and not to Māravarman Sundara-Pandya I. The concern of the prince about the father is natural. Another important fact that the inscription under reference reveals is that Māravarman Sundara-Pandya I, whose accession took place in A. D. 1216 and who appears to have been issuing records in his own name only from the 3rd year of his reign had been nominated already during the time of Kulasēkhara I and he might be said to have had a share in the government of the country even before his nomination. As we have no inscription dated later than the 29th year for Jațāvarman Kulasēkhara I which, by the way, is the same as the third year of the reign of Māravarman Sundara-Pāndya I, he must have succumbed to the disease referred to in the Kan. nanur record. The Sanskrit verse at the beginning of the plates under publication tells us that the king was apprised of the fact of completion of the formation of the village of Rājagambhirachaturvēdimangalam by Sundarēsa (Sundarēšād-avagata). From the facts just noticed, it seems likely that by Sundarēša is meant here Māravarman Sundara-Pāņdya I. Sundara's war against Kulõttunga III must have been conducted under the standard of Jaţăvarman Kulasēkhara I or at least it must have been countenanced by him. In this connection, it may be noted that some of the persons that held offices under Kulasēkhara figure also in the records of Sundara. On the whole the reign of Jaţāvarman Kulasēkhara I appears to have been a prosperous one, undisturbed by any wars except in the closing years. The king seems to have had good regard for Vedic learning and patronised the scholars proficient in it by founding big villages and granting them as brahmadėyas provided with all facilities for good living. Rājagambhīra-chaturvēdimangalam is one of the biggest villages that was ever founded. To some extent the peace in the reign of Jațāvarman Kulasēkhara I must be attributed to the decline of the Chola power which may be said to have commenced in the last decade of the 12th century A. D. not long after the interference of Kulõttunga III in Pāņdyan affairs ending in the accession of Vikrama-Pandya Māravarman, when the Chöļas lost their hold on Conjeeveram, the second great city of the empire. In the latter part of the reign of Kulottunga III there were several factions in the Chõļa country and though the heads of these factions recognised in a way the supreme authority of the Chola emperor there is not much doubt that the peace of the country was greatly disturbed by the part played by the parties. The differences among them, which remained unremoved for a long time, contributed largely to the rapid weakening of the empire and gave the enemies of the Cholas, who had suffered seriously before, an opportunity to wreak their vengeance. The time was favourable for the Pandyas to muster their strength and resources to try final issues with the Chõļas in order to wipe out their disgrace. Just three years before the
1 No. 250 of the same collection. In another inscription of Maravarman Sundara-Pandya I (date lost), Pillaiyar Alagapperumāļ figures as consecrating a God in the temple of Tiruvengaivāsal in Pudukkotte state and inaking a gift of land to it. It is added that the prince was in possession of the District at the time (No. 327).
