________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXI Uttarayana-sankramana, corresponding probably to 1162 A.D., December 25, Monday, mentions the chief as ruling over Sire-nadu (same as the Sirai-nadu of the Tamil record) from his capital at Heñjēru, which is only another form of Peruñjeru, as a feudatory of Chalukya-chakravartin Vikrama (i.e. Taila III). There is also another inscription1 incised on a pillar at the same place, dated in Saka 1090, Sarvajit, corresponding to 1168 A.D., mentioning this chief as a feudatory of Chalukya-chakravartin. He was the son of Irungola Chōla-maharaja of the Nidugal family." Tribhuvanamalla Mallideva Chōla-mahārāja mentioned in the record under review is evidently the Niḍugal Chōda chief and his known dates range from 1162 to 1179 A.D. Then the cyclic year Vyaya mentioned in the record should be the one coinciding with Saka 1088 corresponding to 1166-67 A.D. This being the 2nd year of the reign of Kulottungachōladova, he should have ascended the throne in 1165-66 A.D. It has already been pointed out that none of the three kings bearing the name of Kulottungachōla ascended the throne on this date. But curiously enough we find another Chola king of the imperial family of Tañjävär, Rājādhiraja II, counting his regnal years in some of his inscriptions with this year as the starting point, and it is also known that he did not succeed to the Chola throne as direct heir in the male line. The Pallavarayanpeṭṭai inscription states that Rajaraja II chose as his successor on the throne Räjädhiraja II as there was no regular and proper heir in the male line available then. Pallavarayar (whose full name was Tiruch-chirrambalam-uḍaiyān Perumanambi), who was the trusted chief minister of Rajaraja II and was responsible for this selection, is stated to have made after the coronation of Räjädhiraja II, the uḍankuṭṭam and the nadu act with the king in unison and also to have suppressed [the hostile elements] from doing [any] high-handed action. The actual expression migai seyyadapadi[yum] parigarittu used in the inscription is significant. It is clear therefrom that the accession of Räjädhiraja II to the Chōla throne was not unanimously accepted by the officials and the public and that there was some opposition to the choice, but that Pallavarayar overcame the opposition and compelled it to surrender and accept the selection. Who were those that opposed the selection and how they were subdued are not explicit from the inscription. But it is stated therein that Pallavarayar was successful in his attempt only 'to some extent (orupadi)' and even that possibly with very great difficulty. For making this selection, Pallavarayar, according to the record, brought some princes from Gangaikondasolapuram (Gangaiko[n]dasolapura daruji iru[k]kira pillaigalai ....yāņam pannu....). The use of the word pillaigal in plural denotes more than one prince, although only one person was selected from among them and crowned as Rajadhiraja. It is quite possible that the other prince er prinees who were brought to the capital
270
1 Ibid., Vol. VI, No. 557.
Ibid., Vol. IX, Nos. 268 and 273. See also note 1 at p. 269 above.
The inscription being in the Tamil language and script, it is not possible to take him as one of the TeluguChodas. In fact, no Telugu-Choda prince is known to have borne the name of Kulottungs. He can be only a prince belonging to the Imperial Chola family of Tañjävar.
A. R. Ep., 1908, App. B, No. 571; 1913, App. B, No. 428; App. C, No. 19; also above, Vol. X, pp. 126-27; Indian Ephemeris, Vol. I, part ii, p. 70.
Above Vol. XXI, pp. 184-93; see also K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, Vol. II, pp. 89-96, and above, Pp. 223ff.
The translation given above, Vol. XXI, p. 192, has not brought out the full force of the original text and at places conveys a wrong meaning not borne out by the text. The word migai literally means 'up-lifted arm'. If the word is taken as migai with a short i, then it would mean 'excess'. Even then, it will convey more or less the same idea.
'That Pallavarayar was successful only partially has not been brought out in the translation of the record, referred to above. It runs as follows: "and made the wdankattam (assembly) and the nadu (chamber) follow him without any dissensions. Thus (he) brought all (parties) together so that there might be no transgression. (In this way he) creditably discharged one of his commissions".
[The authors have obviously taken the word itarai occurring in the text (line 12) to mean one of the princes (pillaigal) brought from Gangaikondasolapuram. But the word ivarai cannot mean ivargațil oruvarai. See above, p. 224, n. 1.-Ed.]
