51

CHAPTER - II

REIGN OF ADITYA-II KARIKALA

Aditya- II, also known as Karikala, 1 was the elder son of Sundara Chola

Parantaka- II2 and grandson of Arinjiya. Parakesarivaraman Aditya- II Karikala

was declared as the heir apparent and he was formally associated with his

father, Sundara Chola, in the administration of the Empire in the life time of his

father’s rule. He assumed the regal title, Parakesari whereas his father Sundara

Chola was Rajakesari.

His mother was Vanavanmadevi, daughter of Malayamans of

Tirukkovalur. 3 She committed Sati at the death of his father Sundara Chola.

The Tiruvalankadu Plates records this occurrence as follows - ‘abandoning her

own people and followed as the day to heaven’.4 Tirukkovalur Inscription5 also

denotes the sati committed by Vanavanmadevi:

‘Talaimagar piriya thaiyal nilaiperun

Tunda villaku………
…………..Manimudivalavan
Sundara Cholan madhuranthakan
Tirupuya muyankudevi’

1
. E.I., Vol. XXII, No.34, v.26.
2
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No.205.
3
. S.I.I., Vol. VII, Nos. 863, A.R.E., 236 of 1902.
4
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No 205, v.65.
5
. S.I.I., Vol. II, No.6.
 52

He had a sister by nameKundavai who was married to Vanniyadevan of

6
Eastern Chalukyan Prince. He also had a younger brother by name

Rajaraja I. 7

Aditya- II Karikala as a Crown Prince

In the book ‘South Indian Polity’, T.V.Mahalingam observed that the

Smtris and the Nitisastras lay great stress on the importance of the nomination

of the Yuvaraja or Crown Prince to guard against the danger of civil wars and

usurpations. He also pointed out that according to the Sukranti, “the ruler

should select the eldest son of the Chief Queen as the Crown Prince, as the

offspring of the legally married wife who can perform the tasks of the state

without idleness” and again, “The Crown Prince and Body of Councilors are

the hands of the monarch. They are also known to be his eyes and ears, in each

case, right and left respectively”. 7

This practice was seen among the Chola Kings. The Chola Kings always

crowned their eldest son and appointed him as Yuvaraja during their reigns.

The consecration of the Yuvaraja was an important ceremony. They associated

their sons with the day to day administration of the Kingdom. They were well

versed in all the fields and acted as the Co-Ruler. This was evident from

instances like Parantaka- I crowning Rajaditya, Sundara Chola crowning

Aditya- II, Rajaraja- I crowning Rajendra- I, Rajendra- I crowning

6
. Esalam Copper Plate in Sanskrit portion, V. 14 ;Kudavayil Balasubramaniyan.,
Thanjavur (A.D. 600 - 1850),Thanjaur, 1995, p.38.
7
. Mahalingam, T.V., South Indian Polity, Chennai, 1967, p.92.
 53

Rajadhiraja- I, Kulotunga- I crowning Vikrama as Yuvarajas.8 Even during the

period of Yuvarajaship, the Crown Prince issued orders and made grants even

in his own name. He also took prominent part in the wars of the reigning king.

Thus during the reign of Sundara Chola, Aditya-II Karikala was crowned

the Yuvaraja in 963-964 A.D and he acted as the Co-Ruler. This is evident

from the Tiruvalangadu Copper Plate 9 and Esalam Copper Plate 10 which

identify Aditya- II Karikala as a King who ruled. These Plates confirmed that

Aditya-II Karikala acted as a Co-Ruler, along with his father, Madhurantaka

Sundara Chola Parantaka-II. He was appointed the Viceroy in the Sevur War

against the Pandyas. He also recovered the Tondaimandalam.

Title

Chola Rulers assumed several titles and epithets. A study of them is

useful in understanding the Chola history. These names throw light on the

various facts of the personality of the Chola Kings. In fact, it was one of the

instruments of royal paraphernalia.11

Generally, the Crown Prince, Aditya- II Karikala, a Co-Ruler, was

identified as ‘Virapandiyanai Talaikonda Koparakesari’12 or ‘Pandiyanai Talai

Konda Parakesari,13 in the lithic records, dated from his second regnal year

8
. Raju Kalidos, History and Culture of the Tamils (From Prehistoric Times to the
President’s Rule), Dindigal, 1976, p.149.
9
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 205.
10
. Esalam Copper Plate in Sanskrit portion, V. 14 .
11
. Swaminathan,S., The Early Chola History, Art and Culture, Delhi, 1998 p. 78.
12
. A.R.E., 557 of 1920; 472 of 1908.
13
. Tiruthuraipoondi Kalvettukal, Ins No.64; A.R.E., 215 of 1984-1985.
 54

onwards. His fourth year lithic record, from Tiruvellarai, refers to him as

‘Pandyanai Muditalai Konda Ko Parakesari’. 14 Another lithic record, from

Tiruthuvathurai, dated in his fourth regnal year, refers him as ‘Virapandyanai

Erithu Talai Konda Parakesari’. 15 Yet another epigraph of Raja Raja I from

Udaiyarkudi, addressed him as ‘Pandyanai Talai Konda Karikala Cholan’16

An undated hero stone inscription from Chettithangal, Chidambaram,

called him as ‘Pandyanai Talai Konda Ko- Parakesari Aditya Panmar’. 17

Another hero stone from Kulipatti, Salem District, dated in fourth regnal year

referred to him as ‘Virapandiyanai Arinjitalai Konda Kalikala(Karikala)

Cholar’. 18

Apart from this, Larger Leiden Copper Plate of Rajaraja I mentioned

‘Aditya, otherwise called Karikala’. 19 Tiruvalankadu Copper Plate of Rajendra

I identified the name ‘Aditya’ as the son of Sundara Chola.20 Esalam Copper

Plate of Rajendra I referred to ‘Karikala Cholar’.21 All the above mentioned

references from epigraphs, the hero stones and copper plates, confirm that the

Crown Prince, Aditya- II Karikala, a Co-Ruler, had the surname ‘Karikala’ and

brought about the defeat and death of Virapandya. Nearly thirteen references,

mentioning the title of Yuvaraja, is worth noting.

14
. A.R.E., 533 of 1905.
15
. A.R.E., 398 of 1924.
16
. E.I., Vol. XXI, No.27; A.R.E., 577 of 1920.
17
. A.R.E., 105 of 1946-1947.
18
. A.R.E., 232 of 1990- 1991.
19
. E.I., Vol. XXII, No.34, v.26.
20
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 205, v.67.
21
. Esalam Copper Plate in Sanskrit portion, v. 14 ; Kudavayil Balasubramaniyan,
op.cit, p.38.
 55

Identification and Meaning of the Name, Aditya- II Karikala

The name, Karikala, has been mentioned three times in the Sangam

period. Before Aditya- II Karikala, there were two Karikalas who existed in

Sangam period known as Karikar Peruvalathan or Karikalan22 who constructed

the Kallanai and the other one is referred to by the poets 23 After Aditya-II

Karikala, there were three Chola rulers - Rajakesari Vira Rajendra -I, 24

Rajakesari Rajadhiraja- II(1063- 1070 A.D)25 and Parakesari Kuottunga -III

(1163 -1216 A.D), 26 who assumed the title, “Karikalan”. Hence Aditya- II

Karikala was identified as Karikala- III in the history of Imperial Cholas.

The meaning of the name ‘Karikalan’ is interpreted as Kari = Elephant,

Kalan= God of Death. Literally, it means death (kala) to enemies (elephant). 27

This denotes that he was like his forefather, Karikalan of the Sangam Period, in

qualities and strength. Hence he assumed the surname, Karikalan. On the

whole, he was considered as a valiant hero like his ancestor, Sangam

Karikalan. Hence Adtiya- I assumed the name, “Aditya- II Karikala”

22
. Tirumavalavan, G., Political, Social and cultural History of the Cholas as
gleaned from Ula literature, Exhilagam, Thiruvanthipuram, Cheyyar, 1991,
pp.39-40.
23
. Subramaniya Achariyar,Vae.Su., Karikalar Muvar, (Tamil), Chennai, 2011, p.57;
Niranchana devi, R ., and Ramakrishnan, R., King Karikala, The Great, Chennai,
2010, pp.1-2.
24
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No.29.
25
. A.R.E., 263 of 1913 ;129 of 1927.
26
. A.R.E., 109 of 1906.
27
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., The Colas, Chennai, 1984, p.91,
 56

Different Views Regarding the Regal Title Parakesari

In the history of Cholas, there is one point to which attention may be

drawn, i.e., generally, the Chola kings were called Rajakesarivarman and

Parakesarivarman, alternatively. The Co-Ruler, Aditya-II Karikala, ought to

have been a Parakesarivarman but contrary to the usual order, his predecessor

Uttama Chola too was called Parakesarivarman.

According to Krishna Sastri, Uttama Chola was the son of Rajakesari

Gandaraditya and hence he assumed that regal title, Parakesari, following his

father.28 On opposing the view of Krishna Sastri, K.A. Nilakata Sastri gives an

explanation that the earlier Parakesari, chosen as heir apparent, Aditya- II, died

in the life time of Sundara Chola and the prince chosen next for the throne also

took the title of Parakesari so that Rajakesari Sundara Chola might ascend

follow on the throne of Uttama Chola, a Parakesari, after his death. 29

However, K.A.Nilakanta Sastri argued that while Parantaka I was

Parakesari, his elder son, Rajaditya, assumed the title Rajakesari, but he lost his

life before the death of his father. Since e the prince could not reign, the next

Gandaraditya assumed the same title, Rajakesari. This was followed in the case

of Aditya-II Karikala and Uttama Chola also.30 Therefore ,if the Prince who

assumed the royal title Parakesari or Rajakesari could not rule, their successors

assumed the same regal title.

28
. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report - 1908-1909, p.121; S.I.I., Vol.
III, p. 16.
29
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit., p. 148.
30
. Ibid., p.144.
 57

Date of Aditya- II Karikala

As for the date of Yuvaraja, Aditya -II Karikala, a Co-Ruler is

concerned, it is still under dispute. However, almost all the historians accepted

the year of assassination of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala, a Co-Ruler to be 969

A.D, but his year of coronation was differs from one another.

According to K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, 31 Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala, a

Co-Ruler had become a sub king earlier during the reign of his father, Sundara

Chola. He fixed the same year 956 A.D., for both father and son. According to

M.Krishnamurthi, Sundara Chola, almost immediately after his succession in

957, made his son Aditya- II a Co–Ruler. This was not logical to accept.

Secondly, K.A.Nilakanta Sastri surmised that both Yuvaraja Aditya-II Karikala

and Parthivendravarman, a Pallava Chieftain, were one and the same, based on

the epithet. The later mentioned, enjoyed the highest number of regnal years up

to 16. 32 As there was a disparity in the dates, it was also not accepted.

Sadasiva Pandarathar33 has opined that the year of accession of Yuvaraja

Aditya- II Karikala could be 966A.D. Another historian, S.Swaminathan

considered Aditya - II Kariakala’s second year as 962 A.D., based on the

chronology of the Pandyan Campaign.

Based on the Virapandya’s Ambasamudram Record dated in his twelveth

regnal year, A.S.Ramanatha Iyyar has calculated the Aditya’s accession, on

the basis of Virapandya date.34 He maintains that a solar eclipse occurred in the

31
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit., p.149.
32
. A.R.E., 348 of 1984-1985.
33
. Sadasiva Pandarathar, T.V., History of Later Cholas, Part.I, 1958, pp. 78 and 85.
34
. E.I.,Vol. XXV, No.6, p. 37.
 58

month of Mithuna in the 12th regal year of Vira Pandya. During the period from

930 A.D to 970 A.D, only three solar eclipses occurred in Mithuna were 18th

June 950 A.D, 9th June 959, 28th May 960 A.D. He tabulated the years as

follows:

Table No. II.1

Vira Pandya's 20th Vira
Vira Pandya's Aditya- II
Year = Aditya's Pandya's
12th Year Accession
IInd year Accession
950 A.D 957 A.D 956 A.D 938 A.D
959 A.D 966 A.D 965 A.D 947 A.D
960 A.D 967 A.D 966 A.D 948 A.D

From the above calculation, he considered the second one as the best

suited and he fixed the date as 965 A.D - 969 A.D.

Apart from the above mentioned Ambasamudram record calculation,

A.S.Ramanatha Iyer also maintains that the three records of Aditya - II from

Udaiyarkudi, furnished astronomical details which could approximately take

the date of accession to the end of 963 A.D., for which he required further

examination. 35

V.Venkata Subba Iyer suggested that the second year of Yuvaraja

Aditya- II Karikala fell after 959 A.D. 36 He referred to a record in one of which

a chief by name, Irungolakan alias Pagal Vipparangandan, figured in the

record, dated Kali 4060 which corresponds to 959 A.D., without mentioning

35
. Ibid.
36
. E.I., Vol. XXVIII, p. 269.
 59

overlord.37 The same chief figures in the second year record of Aditya- II.38

Based on these epigraphs, he opines that the second year of Yuvaraja Aditya-II

Karikala fell after Kali 4060, that is, dated after 959 A.D – 960A.D. The above

mentioned opinion was accepted by another scholar, N.Sethuraman.

Apart from the above discussion, based on the astronomical data

contained in the three lithic records of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala from

Udaiyar Kudi 39 and one from Kumbhakonam, 40 the year was calculated by

different scholars, with different results. N. Sethuraman surmised that Yuvaraja

Aditya-II Karikala came to the throne between 12th June and the 18th September

960 A.D. He was alive up to 965 A.D.41 as shown in the Table.

Table No. II.2

Christian
A.R.E Reg.Yr Astronomical Date
Date

588 of 1920 3 16.9.962 Kanni,Tuesday &Uttinashadha

619 of 1920 4 28.10.963 Vrischika,Wednesday,sravishta

610 of 1920 4 28.12.963 Makara Monday,Krithika

234A of
4 16.6.965 Mula Friday, Ani
1911

37
. E.I., Vol. XXV, p.269.
38
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 199; A.R.E., 472 of 1908.
39
. A.R.E., 588 of 1920; 619 of 1920; 610 of 1920.
40
. A.R.E., 234A of 1911.
41
. Sethuraman, N., Early Cholas, Chennai, 1980,p. 65.
 60

He also noted that a lithic record of Rajakesarivarman, dated in the 9th

year, from Tiruvidaimarudur, refers to the setting up of Senbaga garden by

Tiruvenkattu Pichchan. 42

Another undated lithic record, from the same place, belongs to

Parakesari who took the head of Pandya, records the gift of land for

maintaining the Senbaga garden laid out by the same person, Tiruvenkattu

Pichchan. 43 He opines that in both the records, the name of Tiruvenkattu

Pichchan has been mentioned. The former record belongs to Sundara Chola

Parantaka- II and it is dated 965A.D. 44 whereas the latter is the record of

Yuvaraja Aditya -II Karikala and the date has not been mentioned. But based

on the provenance of the records, he dated it also as 965 A.D. This cannot be

accepted because he fixed the date by presumption and not by authenticity.

Another thing is that he fixed the date of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala as

960 A.D. - 965 A.D. and the accession of Uttama Chola as 970 A.D. The

Larger Leiden Copper Plate 45of Raja Raja I shows that Madhurantaka (Uttama

Chola) succeeded Aditya- II. Tiruvalankadu Copper Plate of Rajendra I records

that after the death of Yuvaraja Aditya -II Karikala, Arunmolivarman was

requested by his subjects to succeed to the throne. Though he desired, his

paternal uncle coveted his dominion. 46 Based on the astronomical data, cited in

the eighth year lithic record of Uttama Chola, Swamikkannu Pillai has

42
. A.R.E., 260 of 1907.
43
. A.R.E., 249 of 1907.
44
. Sethuraman,N., op.cit., p. 65.
45
. E.I., Vol. XXII, No.34, v.29.
46
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No.205, v.69.
 61

calculated and fixed his accession to the throne as 969-970A.D. 47 The above

mentioned Copper plates and epigraphs obviously proved that Uttama Chola

succeeded Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala soon after his assassination. Hence the

date fixed by N.Sethuraman leads to a question mark, Why did Uttama Chola

assume power five years after the assassination of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala

Assassination?

V.Ramamurthy also fixed the accession date of Yuvaraja Aditya- II

Karikala as Aipasi 966 A.D., based on the same astronomical data from
48
Udaiyarkudi. It is interesting that both the scholars N.Sethuraman and

V.Ramamurthy, fixed the date of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala, based on the

similar astronomical date but they differed from one another.

But till now, all the scholars are of the opinion that Yuvaraja Aditya- II

Karikala ruled for five years, based on his epigraphs. But according to the

research on the epigraphic data, Yuvaraja Aditya -II Karikala resulted in the

extension of his regnal year up to six. The lithic record from Bahur,

Pondicherry region (Appendix-I) reveals the sixthh regnal year.

“Swasti sri Pandyanai Talai Konda Ko Parakesari Panmarku

yandu ayanthavathuku ethirmarai yandu” (i.e. 5+1)49

47
. E.I., Vol. XXII,p.167.
48
. Ramamurthy,V., History of Kongu, Prehistory Period to 1300 A.D., Part.I,
Madras, 1986, p.277.
49
. A.R.E., 216 of 1984-1985, Transcript referred from ASI, Mysore; P.I, Part-I, No. 12.
 62

Another lithic record, from Koyil Tevarayapettai, a hamlet of

Pandaravadai, Papanasam Taluk, indicates sixtth regnal year (Appendix-I)50

and yet another lithic record from Tirunedungulam, 51 also refers to sixth regnal

year. Hence it is confirmed that he ruled for 6 years. His highest regnal year

was six.

As far as the date of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala is concerned he was

assassinated in the year 969-970, which was substantiated by the coronation of

Uttama Chola . Hence he ascended the throne six years earlier.

Secondly, S.Ramanatha Iyer’s52 assumption of the date of accession of

Aditya- II, at the end of 963 A.D., was based approximately on the

astronomical details of Udaiyarkudi, which requires further examination to be

considered relevant.

After the examination of the above details, the date of Yuvaraja Aditya-

II Karikala was fixed as end of 963A.D or beginning of 964 A.D.

Identity of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala with Parthivendravarman

There were different interpretations among the scholars regarding the

identity of Parakesarivarman Aditya- II Karikala, the son of Sundara Chola

Parantaka II and Parthivendiravarman, who also assumed the title

‘Virapandiyanai Talaikonda’. The opinions on this controversy, are arranged

according to the chronology of publication.

50
. A.R.E., 236 of 1923, Papanasam Vatta Kalvettukal, Part I, No.9.
51
. A.R.E., 672 of 1909, Transcript referred from ASI, Mysore.
52
. E.I., Vol. XXV, No.6. p.37.
 63

1. Both of them claim ae similar epithet, ‘Virapandiyanai Talaikonda’ or

‘Pandiyanai Talaikonda’, from their second year onwards.53

2. Secondly, the Parthivendravarman epigraphs display titles like

Parthivendradhivarman,54 Kovirajamarayar,55 Partama Maharaja,56 Ko

Parthivendrapanmar, 57 Parthivendra Adityaperumanar, 58 which are

partly joined with the name of Aditya -II Karikala.

3. Finally, Parthivendiravarman’s lithic records also display the royal titles

59
assumed by his queens like Villavan Mahadeviyar, Tribhuvana
60 61
Mahadeviyar, Udaiyar Deviyar Arunmolinangaiyar and

Darmapponar alias Trailokya Madeviyar.62

According to H.Krishnasastri, a Government Epigraphist,

Parthivendravarman must have been a prince of the royal family and viceroy of

Tondaimandalam, whereas Aditya -II Karikala appears to have been the actual

successor to the Chola throne. He concludes his statement by the suggestion

that inscriptions of Aditya -II Karikala, the Crown Prince, are very few and

found only in the South and the last regnal year was the fifth whereas, for

Parthivendravarman, there are many lithic records in Tondaimandalam and the

53
. A.R.E., 472 of 1908; S.I.I., Vol. III, Nos. 199 and 152.
54
. A.R.E., 269 of 1910; S.I.I., Vol. III, No.180 .
55
. A.R.E., 264 of 1910; S.I.I.,, Vol. III, No.186 .
56
. A.R.E., 88 of 1898; S.I.I., Vol. III, No.152.
57
. A.R.E., 266 of 1906; S.I.I., Vol. III, No.197.
58
. A.R.E., 38 of 1898; S.I.I., Vol. III, No.158
59
. A.R.E., 32 of 1898; S.I.I., Vol. III, No193
60
. A.R.E., 49,194 ; 52 of 1898; S.I.I., Vol. III, No.195
61
. A.R.E., 7 of 1897; S.I.I., Vol. III, No.166.
62
. A.R.E., 17, 18 and 19 of 1921.
 64

last regnal year was thirtteen 63 But the lithic record of Bahur, Koyil

Tevarayanpettai, points out the sixth year being the regnl year of Aditya - II

and his inscriptions are found both in the South and North.64 The regnl year of

Parthivendravarman increased up to sixteen, as evident from his hero stone and

lithic record from Pugalur, Vellore District.65

As far as K.A.Nilakanta Sastri was concerned, he refuted the suggestion

made by V.Krishna Sastri and concluded that both Aditya- II Karikala and

Parthivendravarman were one and the same, based on the titles assumed by him

as. ‘Parthivendira – Adityavarman’ and as ‘Parthivendra Karikala’ and royal

titles assumed his queens. These titles indicate that he was a Chola Monarch.

K.A.Nilakanta Sastri also states that Chola Kings were very fond of high

sounding titles. 66 Followed by him, S.R. Balasubrahmanyam also maintains

that Parthivendradhipativarman was a Chola Prince of the pre Rajaraja I age. 67

However, V.Balambal, accepted the views of V.Krishna Sastri and

concluded that none of the records of Aditya- II Karikala mentions any one of

his queen and it was too much on the part of Parthivendravarman and his

wives, using regnal title. It shows the high status enjoyed by them. She also

concluded that he must have started his career as feudatory of Sundara Chola,

Aditya- II Karikala and continued up to Uttama Chola. Perhaps he was scion of

63
. S.I.I., Vol. III, p. 15.
64
. A.R.E., 216 of 1984; 223 of 1915; 60 of 1947-1948; 32 of 1893.
65
. A.R.E., 385 of 1984-1985.
66
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit., pp. 148-149
67
.Balasubrahmanyam, S.R., Early Chola Temples Parantaka I to Rajaraja I
(A.D.907 - 985), New Delhi, 1971, p.204.
 65

Pallava family and hence his rule in Tondaimandalam was accepted by the

people.68

A lithic record of Parthivendravarman from Takkolam, dated in his

fourth regnal year, states that a Brahman officer by name Kesavaiyan alias

Pallavan Bramadhirajan, gifted 96 sheep to light a perpetual lamp before the

goddess. 69 The name, ‘Pallava Brahmadhirajan’, confirms that the officer’s

overlord is a ‘Pallava’, evidently Parthivendravarman.

Another lithic record of Parthivendravarman from Harichandrapuram

alias Kartra Motturu, Tiruttani, dated in the tenth regnal year refers to the donar
70
as a Kanmi of Pallava Marayar. The title Marayar belongs to

Parthivendravarman. This fact proves that Pallava Maraya mentioned in the

record, is Parthivendravarman himself. Based on this inference, it is evident

that Parthivendravarman belonged to local Pallava stock and not to the Chola

line.71

Apart from the above mentioned interpretations and conclusions, this

research brought out several other reasons to conclude that both were not

identical. Bhuti Vikaramakesari, Kudambalur Chief who fought along with

Aditya- II Karikala in the Chevur War, was also surnamed as Tennavan

Illangovel, Madhurantaka Iruukkuvel, Adittan Vikramakesari and his queen as

72
Maravanpudiyar. Again Bhuti Vikramakesari had two sons named

68
. Balambal,V., Feudatories of South India (800 - 1070 A.D), Allahabad,1978,
pp.23-24.
69
. A.R.E., 14 of 1897.
70
. A.R.E., 197 of 1942-1943.
71
. Balambal,V., op.cit., pp.23-24.
72
. A.R.E., 1912, p.57.
 66

Parantakan and Adityavarman73 who were apparently named after Chola kings

and Yuvarajas. Based on the surname one cannot identify both to be one and

the same. It was a common practice among the subordinates to assume the

titles and surnames of their overlords.

Secondly, while analyzing the epigraphs, it is found that nearly hundred

epigraphs are attributed to both Aditya- II and Parthivendravarman. But all the

lithic records of Aditya- II addresses him as “Parakesarivarman who took the

head of Virapandya or Pandya” whereas the epigraphs related to

Parthivendravaraman,addres him only Parthivendravarman and

Parthivendrathipathivarman. 74

Thirdly, Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala issued more than hundred

epigraphs, within a short period of six years whereas Parthivendravarman in his

period of sixteen years, issued the same amount of records. Apart from this, the

epigraphs of both are found in the same places like Brahmadesam, Tayanur

etc.75

Fourthly, Udaiyarkudi lithic record of Rajaraja- I evidenced the

assassination of Aditya- II. No wonder he was no more after 969 A.D. 76

Finally, a lithic record of Parthivendravarman, from Anaikkattaputtur,

77
dated in his ninth regal year refers to a temple, ‘Aditya Deva’.

73
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit, pp. 155.
74
. A.R.E., 189 of 1915; 362 -364 of 1909.
75
. A.R.E., 223 of 1915; 362 -364 of 1909.
76
. A.R.E., 577 of 1920.
77
. A.R.E., 288 of 1895, S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 187.
 67

T.V.Mahalingam and Rangachari have opined that the deity was named after

Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala. 78

Thus it is concluded that all the above mentioned statements lead us to

the logical inference that both were not identical. While Yuvaraja Aditya- II

Karikala was the actual ruler, Parthivendravarman was a feudatory under him.

Foreign Policy of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala

Generally, Yuvarajas took prominent part in the wars of the reigning

King. Thus in the wars of Sundara Chola Parantaka- II, his son Aditya- II

Karikala also distinguished himself.

War with Pandyas - First Chevur War

Sundara Chola Parantaka- II, the son of Arinjaya, like his ancestors,

first planned to put an end to the Pandya menace. He waged war with Pandyas

to establish Chola hegemony over the Pandya Kingdom.

The contemporary Pandya of Sundara Chola was Virapandya, the son of

Rajasimha- II. He was a contemporary not only of Sundara Chola but also a

contemporary of Yuvaraja Aditya-II Karikala. 79 After the victory of the

Rashtrakutas over the Chola Country, the Pandya Ruler, Virapandya declared

independence of the Pandya Rule, with Madurai as the capital.80He assumed

78
. Mahalingam, T.V. (ed), A Topographical List of Inscription in the Tamil Nadu
and Kerala States, New Delhi, 1985, p.1; Rangacharya, V., (ed.), A
Topographical List of Inscription of the Madras Presidency, 1915, p.1.
79
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., The Pandyan Kingdom, Madras, 1972, p.90; Rajasekara
Thangamani, M., History of Pandyas, Part-I, Madras, 1978, p.374.
80
. A.R.E., 1909, p.89; Suriyanarayanan, Tamil Nattu Varalatril Ilakiya - Atharangal
A.D.200 - 1300 A.D., Chennai, 1998, p. 331.
 68

titles like Colantaka, 81 Pandimarttanda82 and Solan Talaikonda-Virapandya83

after he killed a Chola prince (i.e., Uttamasili, son of Parantaka- I).

In order to avenge the loss of Pandyan territory, Sundara Chola

Parantaka- II and his son, Yuvaraja Aditya - II –Karikala, fought a war with

Virapandya at Chevur, south of the Sevali Hills on the southern border of the

former Pudukottai State in 962 A.D. This battle was called Chevur Battle in

this battle, Virapandya was supported by the Sinhala troops, sent by Mahinda-

IV.84

This battle is referred to in the Larger Leiden Grant of Rajaraja- I as

follows: “In the city named Chevura, he (Parantaka-II) had the quarters filled

with heaps of sharp and pointed arrows, sent forth from his beautiful bow and

caused to flow manifold rivers of blood springing from the high mountains, i.e.,

the enemy’s elephants, cut asunder by his sharp swords (v.25). 85 It also

mentions, “Aditya II, otherwise called Karikala (v-26), that young boy

(Aditya), the light of the family of Manu, played sportively in the battle with

Virapandya, just as a lion cub (does) with a rutting mad elephant, proud of (its)

strength (v.28). 86

81
. A.R.E., 65 of 1896; 423 of 1914.
82
. A.R.E., 233,138 of 1914.
83
. A.R.E., 163 of 1894; 65 of 1869, V. 455.
84
. Sadasiva Pandarathar, T.V., op.cit., pp.74-75; Appadurai, Ka. ,Tennattu
Porkalangal, (Tamil), Chidambaram, 2001, pp. 219-219.
85
. E.I., Vol. XXII, No.34, v. 25.
86
. E.I., Vol. XXII, No.34, vv. 25 -26, 28.
 69

The Kanrandai Plates 87 (v-24-25) and Kaniyakumari Copper Plates 88

record that in the Chevur battle, Virapandya was defeated and forced to flee to

the Sahyadri Forest for refuge.

Thus both Sundara Chola Parantaka- II and his son, Yuvaraja Aditya -II

Karikala, combined to defeat Virapandya. As a consequence of the victory,

King Sundara Chola Parantaka II assumed titles like the titles

“Madhurantaka”,89 Pandiyanaiccuram-irrakkina-Perumal (who drove Pandya

into the forest), 90 in his seventh regal year and Maduraikonda Rajakesari. 91

The King crowned his son Aditya- II Karikala as the Yuvaraja. 92

Second Chevur War

Virapandya emerged from exile into the forest, after a few years and

claimed to rule in Madurai, which is evident from the existence of his

eighteenth and nineteenth regnal years’ inscriptions.93As an upshot, in the year

964-965 A.D., Chola forces, headed by Yuvaraja Aditya-II Karikala, supported

by Buti Vikaramakesari, a Kodumbalur Chief and Parthivendiravarman, a

Pallava Chief, attacked Virapandya yet again in the same place, Chevur. 94 In

this battle, Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala defeated and killed Virapandya, by

abruptly cutting his head and impaled it in the lofty pillar in his palace at

87
. The Kanrandai Plates, vv-24-25 ; E.I., Vol. XII, No.15.
88
. TAS, Vol. III. No.34, v.63.
89
. A.R.E., 139 of 1907.
90
. A.R.E., 291 and 302 of 1908.
91
. S.I.I., Vol. IV, No.15, 116 to 118.
92
. Sadasiva Pandarathar, T.V., op.cit., p.78 ; Pillai, K.K., Tamilaka Varalaru:
Makkalum Panpatum (Tamil), Chennai, 2009, p.257.
93
. Kaniyakumari Kalvettukal, Part II, Nos.173, 211, 212; T.A.S., Vol.III. No.23.
94
. I.P.S., No.14 ; S.I.I., Vol. III, Nos. 170,177,179.
 70

Thanjavur. Hence the epithets, “Virapandiyanai-Talai-konda Ko- Parakesari,95

“Virapandiyanai-Muditalai-Konda Parakeasari96and Pandiyanai- Talai-Konda

Koparakesari’97 as evident from his lithic records from second year onwards.

Like his supporters, he also adopted a similar title, “Virapandiyanai-Talai-

konda”98

The heroic role of Yuvaraja Aditya-II Karikala is portrayed in

Tiruvalankadu Copper Plate of Rajendra- I, as follows: (V.67) – “After him, his

son named Aditya ruled the earth. He who excelled the mind, born (cupid) in

his superior beauty, killed the Pandya King in the battle” 99 (V68). “Having

deposited the decapitated head of the Pandya King on the lofty pillar of victory,

in his capital town, Aditya disappeared (from this world), with the desire to see

heaven. 100

Further, Esalam Copper Plate in Sanskrit portion, v.14 gives a clear

picture of the valiant role of Yuvaraja Aditya-II thus:“King Karikala Chola, the

brother of Rajaraja, as secured by the goddess Viralakshmi, in the battle field,

he killed Pandya King and cut his head and set it down in the edge of lofty

95
. A.R.E., 557 of 1920; 472 of 1908.
96
. A.R.E., 533 of 1905.
97
. A.R.E., 215 of 1984-1985.
98
. I.P.S., No.14 ; S.I.I., Vol. III, Nos. 170,177,179; Sadasiva Pandarathar, T.V.,
op.cit, p.76; Venkataraman, A., Rajarajesvaram The pinnacle of Chola art,
Chennai, 1985, p.13; Rasamanickanar, M., Cholar Varalaru, Chennai, 2005,
p.174; Rasamanickanar, M., Thamizhaga Varalarum Atchiyum, (Tamil),
Chennai, 2009, p.97; Rasamanickanar, M., Tamil Nadu Varalaru Kalanjiyam
(Tamil), Chennai, 2009, pp. 596 - 598.
99
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 205, v.67.
100
.S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 205, v. 68
 71

pillar in Thanjavur Palace, and rules this world by wearing seven oceans as his

waist band.”101

Apart from the epigraphs and copper plates, the literature also cited the

war. In Rasarasa Cholan Ula, there is a verse which refers to the Kattuvadam,

the anklet of a Pandya King which was removed from his body when he was

beheaded by an ancestor of the hero. According to the commentator, the anklet

belonged to Virapandya and it was taken away from his person by the Chola

Aditya- II Karikala who beheaded him. The valiant role of Aditya- II Karikala

was narrated beautifully in the Rasarasa Cholan Ula.102 As a consequence of

Chevur War, Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala put an end to the First Pandyan

Empire.

Significance of the term, Talaikonda

The identification of the pharse, ‘Talai konda’ is important as it was

assumed by both Cholas and Pandyas. Some scholars argue that the meaning of

the term is that the vanquished king had to acknowledge his defeat by

humbling himself before the conqueror in a particular manner, like placing his

head at the disposal of the conqueror. 103

101
. Esalam Copper Plate in Sanskrit portion, V. 14 ; Kudavayil Balasubramaniyan,
op.cit, p.38.
102
. Rasarasa Cholan Ula, v. 126; Tirumavalavan, G., op.cit., pp.92-93.
103
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit, p.143.
 72

Pandyanai Talaikonda Cholan

As far as the Crown Prince and Co-Ruler, Aditya- II Karikala is

concerned, the term ‘Talai Konda’ means ‘having cut off the head’. It is

believed that Crown Prince and Co-Ruler, Aditya- II Karikala defeated

Virapandya and the term, Talaikonda, connoted the simple capture of the

crown of their opponents. But Tiruvalangadu Copper Plate and Esalam Copper

Plate of Rajendra- I clearly record that Crown Prince and Co-Ruler, Aditya- II

Karikala killed Virapandya in the battle of Chevur and impaled his head on a

lofty pillar in the Thanjavur Palace. 104

Cholan Talai Konda

On the Pandya side, Virapandya assumed the title ‘Cholan Talai

Konda’, from his sixth year onwards. The Chola King, whom Vira pandya had

killed, has not been specified in any of his records. However, scholars had

different views regarding the Chola who lost his head to Virapandya. The

scholars identify various with his contemporaries, fitting the above description,

as follows.

Parantaka I, Rajaditya, Gandaraditya, Arinjaya, Uttamasilli and Sundara

Chola were the contemporaries of Virapandya. Rajaditya was called

105
‘Annaimertunjinadeva’ whereas Gandaraditya was known by the title

‘Merkkelundarulinadeva’. 106 Both of them were not killed in the hands of Vira

104
. Kudavayil Balasubramaniyan, op.cit, p.38; S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 205, v. 68.
105
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 132, 201; Vol. V, No.720.
106
. A.R.E., 540 of 1920.
 73

Pandya. Arinjaya was called ‘Arrurtunjina deva’. He was also out listed. 107

Sundara Chola was called ‘Ponmalligaittunjina devar’ and hence he was also

eliminated. 108 It is clearly stated that he died in the Golden Palace at Kanchi.

Hence the Chola King, killed by Virapandya, was not Sundara Chola.

Uttamasilli, the fourth son of Parantaka- I, as understood from the

epigraphs of Parantaka- I, lost his life in the battle against Virapandya. Thus

Virapandya assumed that epithet, ‘Cholan Talai konda’. M.Venkataramaya

also suggested the same view and V.Balambal also concurs that Uttamasilli lost

his life in the war against the Pandyas. 109

Invasion of Ceylon

There were two Chola invasions of Ceylon, before the reign of Raja

Raja I. Both the invasions are mentioned in the Singhalese Chronicle,

Mahavamsa. The first took place during the reign of the Sinhala King, Udaya-

III and the second at the time of Mahinda- IV. The first was an attempt to seize

the crown and the jewels left by the Pandya King when he fled to Kerala.

The second invasion took place in the reign of Sundara Chola.

Virapandya was supported by the Sinhala troops against the Cholas. This

provoked the Cholas to invade Ceylon. In this battle, the general of the Chola

army, Siriyavelan, fell fighting against Ceylon and lost his life in the ninth year

of Sundara Chola. There is reference to the invasion that took place during the

107
. S.I.I., Vol. VII, No. 17.
108
. S.I.I., Vol. V, Nos. 723 and 980.
109
. Balambal,V, op.cit, p.20; Ramamurthy, V., op.cit., p.265.
 74

reign of Aditya- II Karikala, the Co-Ruler and son of Sundara Chola, who

might have advanced against Ceylon, after his encounter with Vira

Pandya. 110

The Vesagiri Slab Inscription reveals that the Sinhala troops headed by

Sena, invaded the Chola Country and attained victory. After this defeat, the

Cholas cultivated friendly concord with Ceylon. 111

Annexation of Tondaimandalam

Tondaimandalam was under the effective control of Cholas from the

time of Aditya- I till Parantaka- I (i.e., 948A.D). In 949 A.D., the Rashtrakuta

King, Krishna- III, allied with Ganga Ruler, Buttuga- II, defeated and killed the

Yuvaraja Rajaditya in the battle of Takkolam. As a consequence of the battle,

the entire Tondaimandalam was annexed by the Rashtrakuta Empire during the

reign of Krishna- III.112

The same was also confirmed by the Solapuram lithic record.113 Later,
114 115
however, both Gandaradtiya and Arinjaya strove to recover the

Tondaimandalam from Rashtrakutas, which was evidenced by the presence of

their lithic records in Tondaimandalam. But they did not succeed. Hence

110
. Robert Sewell, Historical Inscriptions of South India (collected till 1923), An
Outline of Political History, New Delhi, 1983, p.2; E.C.,Vol. IX, No.75; A.R.E.,
1908, pp.63- 64.
111
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit., p.155.
112
. Altekar, A.S., The Rashtrakutas and Their Times, Poona,1934, pp.116-117;
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, S., Ancient India and South India-History and Culture,
Vol.I, Poona, 1941, p.604.
113
. E.I., Vol. VII , pp.194 -195.
114
. S.I.I., Vol. XIII, Nos.41, 97; A.R.E., 252 of 1937.
115
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No.95 ; Vol. VII. No 73.
 75

Sundara Chola wanted to recover the Tondaimandalam, which was his father’s

intention to do.

Thus under the command of Yuvaraja Aditya -II Karikala, the Co-Ruler

and son of Sundara Chola, the Todaimandalam was gradually recovered from

the Rashrakutas. This was proved by an inscription, dated 965 A.D., from East

Mysore, which mentions the plunder of a town in the reign of Rashtrakuta King

Krishna- III. According to Robert Swell, 965 A.D - 966 A.D was the date of

Aditya- II Karikala and therefore, this musst have happened in the period of

Aditya- II Karikala. 116 In a book, called ‘Dynasty of Chola’ T.Sivakandan

observed that with his son and heir apparent Aditya- II Karikala at the

command of Chola armies, he succeeded in pushing back the occupying

Rashtrakuta armies and regained the Tondaimandalam and pushed the Chola

frontiers north of Kanchipuram.117 Apart from that, most of the scholars concur

that Tondaimandalam was reconquered by Aditya- II Karikala, based on his

lithic record at Ukkal. 118

According to T.N.Subraramani, the death of Krishna-III created an

opportunity favorable for him in his venture. 119 In three authors’ book, it is

mentioned that Sundara Chola shifted his capital to Kanchipuram where he

116
. Robert Sewell, op.cit., ; E.C., IX, .Ma.75.
117
. Sivakandan, T., Dynasty of Chola, Villupuram, 2004, p.36.
118
. Hemingway, Madras District Gazetteer- Tanjore, Madras, 1986, p.22; S.I.I.,
Vol. II, Part II, p. 2.
119
. Subraramani, T.N., South Indian Temple Inscriptions, Vol.III, Part.I, Madras,
1955, p. ixxviii.
 76

died in his palace. 120 In an article in the South Indian History Congress

Proceedings, it is noted that the presence of the lithic records of Parantaka- I,

Gandaraditya, Arinjaya, Sundara Chola and Aditya-II, along with Krishna- III

in Tondaimandalam, indicate that there were incessant conflicts between the

two fronts.121

However, some scholars argue that Sundara Chola died in one of his

campaigns in the north, to recover the lost territory that was Tondaimandalam

and this gave him the appellation of “Ponmaligai Tunjina devar”.122 However,

it is not accepted because the inscription at Kilur, Tirukovallur, clearly

mentions that after his son Aditya- II Karikala. 123

Similarly, the lithic records of Sundara Chola and Yuvaraja Aditya- II

Karikala are coeval with those of Krishna III.

120
. Chopra, P.N., et.al., History of South India, Ancient India, Vol.I, New Delhi,
p. 123
121
. Chandrakumar, T., Inscription of Krishna III at Viruddhachalam , Trivandrum,
1981,p. 58.
122
. Venkataraman, A., op.cit, p.15; Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., History of South India,
Chennai, 1976, p.180.
123
. A.R.E., 236 of 1902.
 77

Table No. II.3

List of Inscriptions of Aditya- II in Tondaimandalam

Place of Epigraph King Name Regnal Year

Sundara Chola124 5th
Tiruvorriyur
Krishna III125 22nd
Aditya II126 4th
Gramam
Krishna III127 25th
Aditya II128 4th
Ukkal
Krishna III129 16th
Aditya II130 3rd,5th & 6th
Bahur
Krishna III131 27th
Aditya II132 3rd ,4th & 5th
Siyamangalam
Krishna III133 22nd , 25th

Apart from the above mentioned inscriptions, the lithic records,

pertaining to Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala, from Mappedu, 134 Kavanur, 135

Brahmadesam,136 Kappalur,137 Thiruvannamalai, 138 Teyyar139 etc., indicate that

the Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala had successfully re-established Chola Rule in

124
. A.R.E., 246 of 1912.
125
. A.R.E., 179 of 1912.
126
. A.R.E., 736 of 1905.
127
. A.R.E., 743 of 1905.
128
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 14.
129
. Ibid., Vol. III, No. 7.
130
. A.R.E., 215 of 1984-1985; P.I., No.10; S.I.I., Vol. XXXII, No.68; A.R.E., 173 of
1902; S.I.I., Vol. No.800; P.I., No.11, 216 of 1984-1985, P.I.,No.12 .
131
. S.I.I., Vol. VII, No. 810.
132
. S.I.I., Vol.VII, Nos. 73, 74, 64; Kalaikovan, R., (ed.)., Varalaru, Vol.12, 13,
2002, 2003, Ins Nos.10, 14.
133
. S.I.I.,Vol.VII, Nos. 75.
134
. A.R.E., 60 of 1947-1948.
135
. A.R.E., 160 of 1921; 146 of 1994-1995.
136
. A.R.E., 223 of 1915; S.I.I., Vol. XXXII, No.67.
137
. A.R.E., 263, 247, 248, 249, 266, and 267 of 1938-1939.
138
. A.R.E., 469, 470 and 471 of 1902; Tiruvanamalai Inscriptions1.1, Nos. 15 and 16;
S.I.I., Vol. VII, Nos. 57, 58 and 59.
139
. A.R.E., 250, 251 of 1990-1991.
 78

Tondaimandalam. Further, the conquest was confirmed by the death of

Krishna- III in the year 966 A.D. and the weak Khottiga ascending the throne.

Khottiga. 140 There is another evidence of Chola palace at Kachippedu

(Kanchipuram), and which had survived under their successors.141

Assassination of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala

Aditya -II Karikala was assassinated in the year 969 A.D. and it was

proved by references. Larger Leiden grants of Raja Raja- I refers this tragedy

as that, “Chief of Kings went to heaven” 142 Tiruvalangadu Copper Plate of

Rajendra- I simply referred the death of Yuvaraja Aditya - II Karikala as

“Aditya- II disappeared from this world, with the desire to see heaven” 143

A lithic record of Rajakesari Rajaraja-I dated in his second year

engraved on the west wall of the central shrine in the Anantisvaraswami

Temple at Udaiyarkudi(Appendix-II), a hamlet of Kattumanar Koil in

Chidambaram, confirmed that Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala, the Co-Ruler, was

assassinated. The epigraph also mentions the names of the victims and their

titles. It recounts that: “Pandiyanaitalai Konda Karikala-Solanai Kondra

drohikalana Soman, his younger brother Ravidasan alias Panchavan

Brahmadhirajan, his younger brother Pramesvaran alias Irummudi Chola

140
. Chopra, P.N., etal., op.cit, p. 104; Balasubramaniyan, Ma., Cholar Arasil
Kalachara Varalaru, (Tamil), Chennai, p.253.
141
. S.I.I., Vol. II, No.6; Vol. V, Nos.723 and 980; Vol.III, No.142, line No.9.
142
. E.I., Vol. XXII, No.34.v.29.
143
. S.I.I., Vol. III, No. 205, v.68.
 79

Bramadhirajan and his brother Malayanuranana Ravidasakiramavittan” 144 were

guilty of treason.

The traitors, who plotted the murder of Aditya- II were punished by

confiscation of their properties and their relatives’ properties (both land &

house). However, the Udaiyarkudi Inscription mentions only a part of the

punishment and not the whole.145

Aditya- II Karikala killed Vira Pandya in a battle. Within six years, Co-

Ruler and Yuvaraja, Aditya- II Karikala, was also murdered. Udaiyarkudi

Inscription confirmed the murder and identified the murderers of the death of

Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala. But there are different opinions among the

historians and archaeologists about the murder. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, based on

the Udaiyarkudi Inscription records his opinion, in his book “Colas” that

Uttama Chola had acquitted the murderers of Yuvaraja Aditya -II Karikala, in

order to ascend the throne and hence the murder of Yuvaraja Aditya- II

Karikala remained unavenged.146

Sadasiva Pandarathar has not accepted the view of Nilakanta Sastri

because if Uttama Chola had murdered and crowned as a King, the subjects and

officers would not be supportive and there might be confusion in his reign.

But,during Uttama Chola’s reign, there prevailed peace and calm. Finally, he

144
. E.I., Vol. XXI, No.27, 1 and 2.
145
. Ibid.
146
. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit., p.157.
 80

came to a conclusion that as mentioned in Udaiyarkudi Inscription, those two

officers and their brothers alone were the traitors. 147

In 1971, R.V.Srinivasan, in his article, “A Note on the Accession of

Raja Raja Chola”, in the Vivekananda College Magazine, observed that

Rajaraja I and his sister Kundavai, were behind the murder of Aditya II. 148The

view of R.V.Srinivasan was rejected by Ka.Tha. Tirunavukarasu, in the book

“Rajaraja I” (1975) and in a Research Journal,“Arunmozhi” under the title

“Aditya Karikalanin Kolai Valaku-Oru Maru Aiyyvu” (1977). He argued that

Uttama Chola was not a murderer. He stated that Gandaraditya, the son of

Mathurantaka, after he was crowned as a king, assumed the name

Madhurantaka Uttama Chola, which was also accepted by his subjects. Further,

he stated that though Uttama Chola ruled for sixteen years, it took a long time

to trace the murderers who were very cunning. Finally, he came to a conclusion

that four Brahmin brothers i.e. officers of Pandya and Chola Country and their

brothers, were the assassins. 149

Another historian, K.K.Pillai also, rejected the view of R.V. Srinivasan

150
and he concluded that Uttama Chola was not the assassin.

147
. Sadasiva Pandarathar, T.V., op.cit, pp. 79-80.
148
. ‘A Note On the Accession of Raja Raja Chola’ in Viveka, Chennai,
1971,
149
. Tirunavukarasu, Ka.Tha., Mudhalam Rajaraja Cholan, (Tamil), Chennai, 1975,
p.52; Tirunavukarasu,Ka.Tha., Aditya Karikalanin Kolai Valaku-Oru Maru
Aiyyvu, (Tamil), 1977, p. p.287- 298; Natana Kasinathan, ‘Arunmozhi’ in Ayaivu
Thokuthi, Chennai, 1988, pp 142 – 153.
150
. Pillai, K.K., Cholar Varalaru, (Tamil), Chennai, 1977, p. 168.
 81

M. Rasamanikanar also had concurred with K.K.Pillai. 151 R. Sathianathaier,

following K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, thought that “Uttama was a bad son of

excellent parents like Sambaji, the son of Sivaji and Saibai” 152 N.Subramanian

observed that “Madhurantaka Gandaraditya, the son of Uttama Chola, was

reduced to the position of an officer by Rajaraja- I, who may be regarded as the

Usurper” but his usurpation passed for nobility and forbearance in the opinion

of some scholars. A. Krishnaswami, in his book, “Topics in South Indian

History”, contended that Co-Ruler Yuvaraja Aditya-II Karikala was murdered

by four Brahmin brothers. 153

An Archaeologist, Natana. Kasinathan, in an article “Parasuraman

154
Suluraiyum Aditya Karikalan Nikalvum”, dealt with the conspiracy against

the Co- Rule and Yuvaraja, Aditya - II Karikala, based on puranic story,

literature, epigraphs and copper plates.

As far as Puranic story is concerned, Karthaviriyan was the son of

Kiruthaviriyan and Suganthi. He was a Kshtriyan and born in the solar race. He

obtained a Kamathenu cow from saint, the Samathakini. As a consequence, his

son, Parasuramar, killed Karthaviriyan. As a revenge for this, Karthaviriyan’s

son killed Saint Samathakini in the absence of his son, Parasuramar. When

Parasuramar saw that the wife of saint was crying and beating her chest twenty
151
. Rasamanikanar, M., Cholar Varalaru (Tamil), Chennai, 2005 p.175 ; Tamizhaga
Varalaru, (Tamil), Nagercoil,2007, p.99.
152
. Sathianathaier, R., A Political and Cultural History of India, Madras, 1945,
p.406.
153
. Krishnaswami, A., Topics in South Indian History (From Early Times upto
1565), Chidambaram, 1978, p.158.
154
. Natana. Kasinathan, Tamilaga Varalattru Thadaiyangal,(“Parasuraman
Suluraiyum Aditya Karikalan Nikalvum”)(Tamil), Chennai, 2011,pp. 120-130.
 82

one times. On seeing this, Parasuramar got angry and he decided to destroy

Kirthiviriyan’s descendant. Hearing this, Karthaviriyan’s sons, namely,

Sayathuvasan, Virasenan, Virusanan, Nadhurasan or Ursithan escaped from the

hands of Parasuramar. Natana.Kasinathan connected this puranic story, with

the story of Manimekalai and argued that Parasuramar (Maluvazh Nediyon)

was determined to destroy Kashtriyas and entered Puhar. Hence goddess of

Puhar warned the Chola King, Kandhaman to take refuge. Thus Natana

Kasinathan tried to connect both Purana and Tamil literature Cholas were

Kshtriyas and Parasuramar was a Brahmin and thus Parasuramar and his

descendants had entertained enmity with the Cholas.

He also argued that Gandaratiya was called “Merrukkelundaruliya

Deva” and so he went to the West (i.e. Chera Country Kandalur Salai) .There

he was killed by brahmins. He also continued the argument that Sundara Chola

was praised as the First among the Kshtriyas (Kshtriyarkalil Mudanmai

Yanavan) in Anbil Copper Plates. He came to know the reason for the death of

Gandaraditya and sent his elder son, Yuvaraja Aditya-II Karikala to

Kandalursalai to punish those who killed Gandaraditya. On hearing this, the

descendants of Parasuramar, who lived in Udaiyarkudi, killed Aditya- II.

It took time to find out the culprits who murdered Yuvaraja Aditya- II

Karikala. As soon as Rajaraja I came to the throne, in his second year, he found

out the culprits and seized their properties. This was the reason why RajaRaja I

invaded Kandalur Salai in his third year and defeated the descendants of

Parasuramar and assumed the title, “Kandalursalai Kalamarutharuliya”. Again

 83

he was referred to in Tiruvalangadu Copper Plate which describes the victory

of Rajaraja-I as “Parasuraman Nadai Vendradu.” Again it referred to

Rajendra’s invasion of the Chera Country and his acquisition of Chera Crown,

Garland, Sem Ponmudi, set up by Parasuramar in Sandhima Island. He also

assumed that it was the reason that Tillai Muvairavars, from the Chera Country,

did not show the place where Tirumurai was stored in Tillai Nataraja Temple.

But it was not an accepted statement because Muvar Ula clearly

indicates that Raja Raja- I invaded Chera Country because King Parakrama

Ravivarman ill-treated one of his bureaucrats sent by him.155 Hence Rajendra

invaded Chera Country in order to acquire what his forefather Parantaka I

wanted to do. 156

He also says that though Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala was murdered by

Brahamana brothers, his brother Rajaraja- I did not stop reciting of Vedas and

he used to recite Tirumarai in the temples. He was also honoured as Kshtriya

Sigamani in Leiden Grants. There was also no reference to land donation to

Brahmanas in his reign.

However, his arguments are not accepted because it is a Purana, only a

story and not real. Further, the relation between Cholas and Cheras were

cordial in the earlier period of the ancestors of Rajaraja- I. Tillaisthanam lithic

record157 records a certain Vikki Annan who is stated to have received royal

155
. Sadasiva Pandarathar, T.V., op.cit, p.102; Kulothunga Cholan Ula, l.46-48;
Vikrama Cholan Ula, l.32 -34.
156
. Nikanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit., p.201.
157
. A.R.E., 286 of 1911.
 84

honour called “Sembiyan Tamilvel”, from Aditya- I as well as from his Chera

contemporary, Sathanu Ravi. Parantaka- I married a daughter of the Chera

King. 158 The lithic record of Parantaka- I, from Gramam, referred to Rajaditya
159
who came from the Kerala Country. Another lithic record, from

Tirunamanallur also, mentions the natives of Malabar as the personal servants

of Rajaditya.160 Sundara Chola’s Queen Parantakan Deviar was the daughter of

161
a Chera King. Above all, there is a reference, in the Tiruvannamali

Inscription, to Aditya- II Karikala, registering a gift of gold lamp by Chera

162
Queen, Kilandigal. All these facts prove that the relationship between

Cholas and Cheras was very cordial.

Apart from historians and archaeologists, a historic story writer also

referred to the murder of Yuvaraja Aditya -II Karikala. In “Ponniyin Selvan”,

Kalki narrates the death of Aditya- II. Regarding this, he created some

historical characters and some imaginary characters responsible for the death of

Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala. Finally, he left it to the readers to judge who the

assassin was. 163 A famous Tamil writer, Bala Kumaran, in his work, “Kadigai”

which was based on the murder of Yuvaraja Aditya-II Karikala, described the

158
. Sadasiva Pandarathar, T.V., op.cit., p.60.
159
. A.R.E., 739 of 1905.
160
. A.R.E., 739,735,745 of 1905.
161
. S.I.I., Vol. V, No. 723.
162
. A.R.E.,470 of 1902, SII-VIII-No.58.
163
. Kalki, Ponniyin Selvan (Tamil ),Vol.V, Chennai, 2011, p. 283
 85

four Brahmin brothers as the traitors. Like K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, he also

insisted that Uttama Chola had a hand in the assassination.164

Finally, Kudavoyil Balasubramanian, in his Tamil article, “Udaiyarkudi

Kalvettu Oru Milpaarvai’, clearly analysed the information of Udaiyarkudi

Inscription. He stated that Udaiyarkudi Inscription was not a direct order of a

King. It was a Srimuham (letter) , in the nature of only an acceptance letter.

Though the properties of the traitors responsible for Aditya II’s murder, were

earlier seized by the Sabha of Viranarayana Chaturvedimangalam and those

properties were in their control, it was not known when the properties were

seized and by whom. It either happened in the reign of Sundara Chola or that of

Uttama Chola. Further, he states that later by the permission of Rajaraja I some

properties seized from the assassins , were sold by Perunguri Mahasabha and

the amount was remitted to the treasury. The transaction was done under the

supervision of Kottaiyur Brahmadhirayan and Chandra Sekara Bhattan of

Pullanmangalam, appointed by Raja Raja- I.165

Kudavoyil Balasubramanian states that the issue date of Srimuham and

the endowment date were not the same, based on the calculation of Indian

Ephemeris. The date of RajaRaja I’ s Srimuham was 986 or 987 A.D and the

endowment date was 15th April 988 A.D. 166 He concluded that the Udaiyarkudi

164
. Nikanta Sastri, K.A., op.cit., p. 157.
165
. Kudavoyil Balasubramanian, ‘Udaiyarkudi Kalvettu Oru Milpaarvai’ ; Interview
with Kudavoyil Balasubramanian at Thanjavur, dated 25 April 2014.
166
Swamikannu Pillai, L. D., Indian Ephemeries cited in E.I.,Vol. XXI, No.27,
p.167
 86

Inscription is only a permission letter issued by Rajaraja I and there is no

indication that the traitors were punished or found.

He also explained that the title, Brahmadhirajan, was given to Brahman

officials. Among the traitors, the title of ‘Soman’ was damaged, second was

Ravidasa Panchavan Brahamadirajan, and third was Prameswaran alias

Irummudi Chola Brahmadhirajan. ‘Brahmadhirajan’ was the title given to

Brahman Officers by Pandya Kings. Irummudi Brahamadhirajan was the title

given by Chola Kings. He viewed that Soman also had the Pandya title. Hence

he concluded that Pandyas were the assassins and that they killed Yuvaraja

Aditya -II Karikala as an act of revenge for the death of Vira Pandya.

Further, he believed that the murderers went to Kerala Country after

their properties were seized. He argued that Madhurantaka, son of Uttama

Chola, was given a respectable place in the reign of Raja Raja- I. He also

named his son Rajendra –I, as Madhurantaka. The mother of Uttama Chola,

Sembiyan Madevi’s affection for Raja Raja I and his respect towards her,

revealed that Mahurantaka Uttama Chola was in no way responsible for the

murder of Yuvaraja Aditya -II Karikala. Finally, he concluded that Udaiyarkudi

inscription is only a letter which mentioned the names of the traitors who killed

Aditya- II Karikala and other than that, nothing else was known.

Like T.V.Sadasiva Pandarathar, Kudavoyil Balasubramanian also

maintained that Uttama Chola had no hand in this conspiracy. Similar view was

confirmed in the field survey of the two places and in the Tiruvilakudi
 87

inscriptional evidence. The second year of Uttama Chola lithic record referred

to a regiment, ‘Karikala-Chola-Terinja-Kaikkolar’ (Appendix-III). It was

named after Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala. 167 Again Uttama’s fifteenth year

lithic record (Appendix-IV) from Chokkeeswarar Temple, Kanchipuram,

referred to an endowment for offering to god Karikala Chola Pillaiyar, within

168
the temple. The temple was built by Uttama Chola and the sculpture of

Karikala Chola Pillaiyar was kept in the Devakoshta (Plate 4) in memory of his

paternal son.169 Yet another inscription of Uttama Chola, from Kuhur, referred

to a land purchased for offering worship to Aditta Iswaram udaiyar. 170 It is

inferred that though the earliest inscription of this Karikala, which was also

confirmed by Kulottunga I’s inscription which adorns the temple, belonged to

Uttama Chola, it was built by him in memory of Yuvaraja Aditya- II in the

same temple and refers to the temple name as Karikala Isvaramudaiya

Mahadevar.171

It is concluded that all the above mentioned evidences confirm Uttama

Chola’s affection towards Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala.. Apart from this, as

mentioned earlier Virapandya killed one Chola Prince and obtained the epithet

‘Cholan Talai konda Virapandyan’ and in order to counter this, the Co-Ruler

Aditya- II Karikala cut the head of Virapandya in the Chevur War and obtained

the epithet, ‘Virapandiyanai Talai Konda Koparakeasari’. Again as an act of

167
. A.R.E., 136 of 1926; S.I.I., Vol. XIX, No. 27.
168
. A.R.E., 1 of 1906; S.I.I., Vol. XIX, No. 365.
169
. Field Survey conducted at Kanchipuram, dated on 12 January 2014.
170
. A.R.E., 287 of 1917.
171
. A.R.E., 293 of 1917.
 88

revenge, the Brahmin Officials of Pandya Country, with the help of Chola

officer, cunningly killed the Co-Ruler Aditya- II Karikala.

Sculptures and Monuments

As noted earlier, Chokkeeswarar Temple, Kanchipuram and Karikala

Isvaramudaiya Mahadevar Temple (does not existed now), Kuhur, were erected

in memory of Yuvaraja Aditya -II Karikala.172 In front of the eastern mandapa

of Ekkamaranathar Temple, at Kanchipuram, there is a sculpture of Karikala

Chola (Plate 1).The sculpture is in a standing posture, by holding in two hands

the anjali hastam. The face, with long mustache and beard, denotes its

dignified valor. A question arose whether it was a Sangam Period Karikala or

Aditya- II Karikala. The pujas are done daily once. 173 The seventeenth year

lithic record of Parakesari, from Tiruvorriyur, explains that the boundary, south

of the embankment of the river, was called Karikalakarai. A doubt arose

whether it was named after the legendry Chola who built the embankment for

Cauvery or Aditya- II Karikala who also had the title of Karikala.174

Pallipadai

The Tamil word, ‘Pallipadi,’ means sepulchral temples, built in memory

of the deceased kings and the crown prince over their ashes. It was narrated by

two authors but it was not confirmed. Two references of Pallipadi of Aditya- II

172
A.R.E., 136 of 1926 ; 287, 293 of 1917 ; Srinivasan,C.R., Kanchipuram
Through the Ages, Delhi, 1979,p.97; Natana Kasinathan and Chandramurthi, M.,
(ed.), Kanchipuramavatta Kalaigal, Chennai,2011,p. 235.
173
. Natana Kasinathan and Chandramurthi, M., (ed.), op.cit., p. 236.
174
.S.I.I., Vol. VII, No. 682 ; Tirumalai. R., Collected Papers, Madras,1994, p.197.
 89

Karikala are mentioned in the following paragraph. There was a big

Panalingam in Pakirisami’s plantain grooves, near Cholanmaligai, at Ottai

Thoppu in Udaiyalur, Kumbhakonam. However, most of the archaeologists and

historians maintain that it was a Pallipadai of Raja Raja- I. But

C.Govindarajanar and C.G Deivanayagam argued that it may be the Pallipadai

of Yuvaraja Aditya- II Karikala. They came to this conclusion because they

inferred that Pallipadi of Rajaraja had structural temple and so it belonged to

Aditya- II. 175 But their view was not accepted because the pillar inscription in

Paalkulathaman Temple records that it was the Pallipadai of Rajaraja I. 176

When Pakirisami was interviewed, he said that some years before the

excavation was also conducted by the Archaeology Department, for some

political reason, it was stopped and trenches were also closed. 177 He said that

there was a structure. However, only complete excavation in future alone could

reveal the truth.

Maruthuvar Agathiyadasan maintains that Raja Raja- I built the Siva

Temple, known as Iravikula Manikesvara Temple, in memory of his elder

brother, Aditya- II Karikala, in Dadapuram. Again, he opined that Rajendra- I

175
. Govindarajanar, C., Deivanayagam. C.G., Cholar Varalaru, (Tamil), Thanjavur,
2010, p. 50.
176
. Jagat Pati Josh, (ed.) ., Indian archaeology – A Review, 1985-1986, New Delhi,
1990,p.99.
177
. Interview with Pakirisami on 25 November 2013.
 90

built the temple.178 His views overlapped with one another. The inscription of

Rajaraja- I clearly states that the temple was built by Kundavai. 179

The Cholas built temples in memory of kings and crown princes. One

such temple was constructed by Parthivendravarman, at Anaikkattaputtur, in

memory of Aditya- II Karikala, the son of Sundara Chola and the elder brother

of Rajaraja- I.

Anaikkattaputtur is located four kms the south-west of Manavur, the

head quarters of the Manavil Kottam and it can be approached through

Urodagammadevimangalam, the present day Sivapuram from where one has to

walk a distance of about 2kms to reach it. This place is referred to variously as

Anaikkaraippudur, 180 Anaiakkaraipudur 181 and Anaikattaputtur. 182 The temple

Adityeswara stands in the centre of the village but in a dilapidated condition.

Renovation work was done by the village people. The temple was a flourishing

centre during the medieval period. The earliest inscription, found in the village,

was assigned to Parthivendravarman. It is reported in the A.R.E and S.I.I.183 but

now the inscribed slab is missing. However, the ruined temple structure is still

in existence. However, the Chola architectural design and the pillars prompt

one to assign the temple to Tenth Century .A.D. The temple was constructed by

178
. Agathiyadasan, Kundavai Nachiyar Ariyalur, 2010, pp. 114, 86.
179
. A.R.E., 18 of 1919, Kuppusamy,S., Thaadhapuram Koil Kalvettukal,
Chennai, 2011, p.53.
180
. A.R.E., 254 of 1921.
181
. A.R.E., 288 of 1895; S.I.I., Vol.III. No.187.
182
. A.R.E., 75 of 1947-1948.
183
. A.R.E., 288 of 1895; S.I.I., Vol.III. No.187.
 91

Parthivendravarman, in memory of Aditya- II Karikala and named as

Adityeswara Temple (Plate 5).