________________
144
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ August, 1919
dent ruler-from all Eastern Chalukya genealogies, the notice of Räjiga (a shortened form of Rajendrachôļa in Bilhana's Vikramåókadêvacharita 28 as the lord of Vêugi' just before his accession to the Chola throne and more than all the enigma "of Rajendrachốla II's position # the disputod succession were allowed, all these taken together go to discredit entirely the story of the disputed succession and prove that the uncle and the nephew were on the best terms possible without any ill-will between them. If Viranâjêndra really conquered Veigi as the inscription affirms, then it passes one's understanding why he should have contented himself merely with the status quo of an allegiance and why he should not have annexed in accordance with his former resolve-a country so valuable from a diplomatic standpoint and anticipated the work of Rajendrachốla II or Kulottuiga I by a few years by bringing the two crowns, Vôngi and Chola under one rule, embracing the whole eastern Eeaboard. Matters do not seem to have been so entirely favourable to Virarajendra as the inscription boasts and the alleged conquest and bestowal of Veigf on Vijayaditya must betaken cum grano salis.30 Our suspicions are only increased by the Ganga grant published by Fleet wherein Râjarâja of Kalinganagara (A.D. 1068 1076), the son-in-laws of Râjêndrachôla II, is said to have come to the relief of the said Vijayaditya "the waning lord of Vêigi when beginning to grow old, he left Vêigi, as if he were a sun leaving the western sky and was about to sink in the great ocean of the Chôdas." This Chôja danger. oould not have been from Rajendrachôla II (Kulôttuuga), as Dr. Hultzsch33takes it, but could have been only from Virarâjêndra. Virarajêndra, far from being a protector of Vijayaditya, as would appear from the Manima galam inscription, must have been the very person that threatened his kingdom with annexation for his desertion of the Chola allegiance and change of sides. The truth was when VijayAditya, the deputy of Vengi, was hard pressed by Virarajêndra with annexation about A.D. 1067 and could not defend himself singly, Vikramaditya, who for years was working in the north against his enemy Viraråjendra and who was perhaps the root cause of Viia. yâditya's desertion, came to his rescue, went to Chakrakôïta and Kaligaragara ard easily formed a triple alliance with the kings of those countries who saw a merace to their own state in the annihilation or annexation of Vengî by Virarâjêndra. Virarajendra tried though
* VI, 26.
29 Rajendrachola Il could not have remained in Vengt if Vijayaditya his enemy had been rein. stated on its throne, nor could he have remained in the Choa dominions for Virarájéndra, the ally of Vijayaditya, would keep him out. Where, then, was Rajendra Il down to his socession to the Chola throne? Vide my forthcoming article on "The Life and Times of Kulottunga" wherein this question will be more fully threshed out.
* Vide part III, infra.
* Ind. Ant., XVIII, No. 178. Vizag, copper-plate "grant of Anantavarman Chodagangadava Rajaraja's agramahishi was Rajasundarf, the daughter of Rajendrachola, Ind. Ans., XVIII, No. 179; Vizag, oopper plate grant of Anantavarman Chôdagangadēva" Rajaraja of Kalinganagan wedded Rajasundart, the daughter of the Choda king.'
* Ind. An., XVID, Nos. 178 and 179.-The Vijayaditya here referred to cannot be, as sugreeted by the late Mr. BhattanAtha Svemin (Ind. Ant, XLI, 217), the half-brother of Vikramaditya who was young, but can only be the uncle of Rajendrachļa IT, who was old. Vanapati's inscription (Epi. Ind., IV. 314, 311) and Anantavarman's grant (Ind. Ant, XVIII), which apparently contradict each other need not necessarily refer to the same fact as has been assumed.
SII., III. Dr. Hultaach's opinion is from the standpoint of the disputed succession between Vijayaditya'the uncle and Rajendrachla II (Kulottunga) the nephew which was proved to be non-existent. Vido supra. So it is untenable. Vide also Ind. Ant. XLI, 218.
