1. BkE-SathianathierR-StudiesInTheAncientHistoryOfTondamandalam-1944-0073

UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS THE SANKARA - PARVATI LECTURES, 1943-44

STUDIES IN THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF TONDAMANDALAM

BY

R. SATHIANATHAIER, M.A., L.T Lecturer, The Annamalar Unwersity Sometime Asst. Professor, St. Joseph's College, Trichy AUTHOR OF History of the Nayaks of Madura AND A College Tert-hant ^ Indian History

B

ROCHOUSE & SONS, LTD., FRANCIS JOSEPH STREET, MADRAS 1944

CONTENTS

PAGE

LECTURE I .. 1

LECTURE 1I 27

APPENDIX A . . .. 55

APPENDIX B .. 64

APPENDIX C .. .. 67

APPENDIX D .. . .1 .. 68

INDEX .. .. . .1 .. 69

PREFACE These two lectures were delivered on the 28th and 29th of February last in response to the invitation of the University of Madras in December, 1943, to lecture under the Sankara-Parvati Endowment before the end of February, 1944. The ancient history of Tondamandalam is a well-ploughed field, and I have concentrated on some of its salient aspects. Several of the conclusions arrived at here are new, and the chief of them are as follows: (1) A radical revision is necessary of the southern boundary of Asoka's empire so as to include within it the whole of Tondamandalam. (2) The Pulindas of Asoka's inscriptions should be identified with the Kurumbas of Tondamandalam. (3) Bindusāra Maurya conquered Tondamandalam with the active support of Kautilya, whose personal knowledge of South India is reflected in his sobriquet Dramidāchārya. (4) Samudragupta had nothing to do with the Ganjam or Vizagapatam District; he marched through the East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna and Nellore Districts, and returned home via the Sātāra and Maņdlā Districts; his Dakshiņāpatha expedi- tion was of a punitive character. (5) Tondamandalam was unique among the regions of Peninsular India as the stronghold of Buddhism till the middle of the 7th cen- tury A.D .; it became the home of three streams of Indian culture, Buddhist, Brahmanical and Tamil, and these culture-contacts are of vital importance in its history. (6) The germs of the village Mahāsabha of the Pallava and Choļa periods are found in the Arthasastra of Kauțilya, and the variyam organisation, as distinct from

ii PREFACE the kudavolai system, must be regarded as an Indian rather than as a South Indian institution. (7) We are justified in thinking that a Buddhist studium generale or University existed at Kanchi in the 7th century A.D. (8) The aśvasamstha of the Talagunda inscription of Kākutsthavarman is not a horseman but a mounted spy, and this interpretation necessitates a revision of the story of Mayūraśarman's connection with Kāñchī. (9) The establishment of colleges at Ennaviram, Tribhuvani and Tirumukkudal in the 11th century and the connected erection of hostels and hospitals are suggestive of Bud- dhist (Kanchi-Nalanda) influence. In connection with these lectures and their publica- tion, my thanks are due to (a) the scholars who have enriched Indian History, (b) the Founder of the Sankara- Parvati Endowment Lectureship, (c) the University of Madras, (d) the Annamalai University and (e) Messrs. Rochouse and Sons, Ltd., Madras.

ANNAMALAINAGAR, 11tk March, 1944. R. SATHIANATHAIER.

Studies in the Ancient History of Tondamandalam

LECTURE I Importance of the History of Tondamandalam. The Tamil country may be likened to a magnificent column, and Tondamandalam is its capital, the Chola-Kongu- mandalam, its shaft, and the Pandyamandalam, its base. The base of the column was broader in the Sangam Age as Keraļa was then a part and parcel of the Tamil country. The history of Tondamandalam is remarkable in some respects It records a long series of invasions from the time of Bindusāra to that of Sivaji- Maurya, Satavāhana, Choļa. Pallava, Gupta, Kaļabhra, Chāļukya, Rāshțrakūța, Pāņdya, Chōļa again, Rāshțrakūța again, Pāņdya again, Hoyśala, Kākatīya, Muslim, Travan- corean, Kākatīya again, Muslim again, Vijayanagar, Pāņdya again, Gajapati, Bahmani, Bījapūri, Marāțha and Mughal. Further, Tondamandalam was the heart of the Pallava Empire and the helmet of the Chola Empire; it was the scene of a triangular contest among the Pāņdyas. Hoysalas and Kākatīyas and of the ubi- quitous activities of the Lion of Tondamandalam; it was the nucleus of Saluva Narasimha's power; it was the grave of the Vijayanagar Empire; and it was the foot- hold of the English in South India. Besides its monu- ments and its contribution to Sanskrit, Pali and Tamil literatures, Tondamandalam contains the best evidences 0-1

2 GAUTAMA BUDDHA

for the local government and educational organisation of the Pallavas and of the Cholas. The Buddha. According to Yuan Chwang " Talopitu had been frequently visited by the Buddha, and king Asoka had erected topes at the various spots where the Buddha had preached and admitted members into his Order .... Not far from the south of the capital (Kan- chih-pu-lo) was a large monastery which was a rendezvous for the most eminent men of the country. It had an Asokan tope above 100 feet high where the Buddha had once defeated Tirthikas by preaching, and had received many into his communion. Near it were traces of a sitting-place and exercise-walk of the Four Past Buddhas."1 Talopitu is Tondamandalam ; toņda-toda- tola-talo; mandala =a division; pita=a collection or division of the Scripture; cf. nilopitu = blue collection. The local tradition of the Buddha's frequent visits to Tondamandalam recorded by the Chinese Pilgrim is to be rejected without the slightest misgiving, in spite of the fact that his account is circumstantial, because we know from the Pali Canon the limits of the Buddha's itinerary after his enlightenment: Bodh-Gaya, Benares, Rājagriha, Śrāvastī, Vaisāli, Rājagriha again, Śrāvastī again, Rāja- griha again, Nālandā, Pāțaligrāma, Vaisāli again, Pāva and Kusinagara. Even his visit to Kausāmbī is doubted, and there is absolutely no basis for his alleged visit to Kashmir or Ceylon. Before the time of Asoka, Buddhism was confined to Northern India from Anga to Avanti.2 1 T. Watters, On Yuar Chwang's Travels in India, Vol. II, 1905, p. 226. 2 N. Dutt, Aspects of Manayana Buddhism and Its Relation to Hinayana, 1930. p. 14

EXTENT OF ASOKA'S EMPIRE The small circle on the map of India in The Outline of History3 by H. G. Wells broadly represents the cradle of Buddhism. Therefore we have no reasons for connecting the Buddha with Tondamandalam.

The Southern Boundary of Asoka's Empire. The posi- tion taken by 'Smith is accepted by scholars: " The approximate southern boundary of the empire is easily defined by the existence of three copies of the Minor Rock Edicts in Northern Mysore (N. lat. 14° 15', E. long. 76° 48') and by the references in the Fourteen Rock Edicts to the Tamil states as independent powers. The frontier line may be drawn with practical accuracy from Nellore (14° 27' N.) on the east coast at the mouth of the Peņņār river to the mouth of the Kalyānapuri river (13° 15' N.) on the west coast " 4 This solution of the problem is mechanical as the line is drawn right across the peninsula immediately to the south of the Mysore edicts Further, Smith's reference to the Tamil states implies that their northern boundary was identical with the northern boundary of the Cholas and with the southern boundary of the Maurva Empire But the Chola kingdom even in the period of Karikāla did not extend to the Palar,5 and the northern boundary of the Tamil country according to the Sangam Literature cannot be regarded as the northern limit of the Chola kingdom, which "according to tradition ... comprised the land between two streams having the same name", viz., North and South

3 Cassell & Co., the Fourth Revision, p. 238. 4 V. A. Smith, Adoka '(1920), p. 80. .5 K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, I (1935), map, p. 48.

4 SATĪYA = KOŃGU

Vellar.6 Therefore in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary, the Cholas mentioned by Asoka must be regarded as in occupation of the region to the south of N. Vellār, and their northern boundary must have been the same as the southern frontier of the Maurya Empire. Moreover, Smith's line was not redrawn even after he had given up the identification of the Satiyaputra country with the Tulu country. The southern boundary of Asoka's Empire must be conterminous with the northern boundary of the Satiyaputra and Chola countries.

Identification of the Satiyaputra Country. Rock Edict II mentions the Choļas, Pāndyas, Satīyaputra and Kēraļaputra as independent southern peoples. Rock Edict V says that Dharmamahamatras were employed among the subject peoples-Yavanas, Kāmbōjas, Gāndhāras, Rāshtri- kas and Pitinikas Rock Edict XIII mentions the preva- lence of Dhamma among the Yavanas, Kāmbōjas, Nābha- pantis, Bhōjas, Pitinikas, Andhras and Pulindas. In the last two cases the order of enumeration is geographical; it must be so in the first case as well-Choļas, Pāndyas, Satīyaputra and Kēraļaputra. Therefore the Satīvaputra country must be taken as a great country like the others, its next-door neighbours being the Pandya country. and Kerala. In other words the Satiyaputra country should be sought for between the Pandya country and Keraļa, which were however conterminous in the far south. Therefore the Satiyaputra country may be identified with Kongudesa. Smith's suggestion to equate the Satiyaputra country with the Satyamangalam country deserves support. Tradition regards Kongu, the

6 Ibid., p. 22.

SATĪYA = KOŃGU 5

region from the Anamalai to the Shevaroy hills (the Coimbatore District and most of the Salem District), as an independent political unit from the beginning of the Christian era.7 Roman imperial coins of the first century A.D. found in the Coimbatore District testify to the commercial prosperity of Kongu, whose beryl was widely welcomed in the western world.8 It is reasonable to suppose that such a kingdom came within the cognisance of Asoka rather than the diminutive Tulu country with its notorious pirate coast. If the Tulu country were meant by that emperor, he would have mentioned Satīya- putra after Kēraļaputra. One scholar identifies the Satīya- putra country with the Kanchi region on the ground that a grant of A D. 1686 refers to Kāñchi as the Satvavrata- kshetra,9 but Asoka mentions Satīyaputra after the Cholas and the Pandyas and before Keralaputra. The other reasons already adduced militate against the identification of Satīvaputra with Tondamandalam. As the Satīya- putra country is Kongudēsa, its northern boundary must have been identical with the southern boundary of the Maurya Empire. Therefore we may draw the line from Kāsaragod (12° 30', south of Mangalore) along the Chandragiri and along the Kāvēri till it crosses North Latitude 12°, encircling the Shevaroy hills and along the North Vellar to Porto Novo (11° 30'); instead of North Latitude 14° we have to regard North Latitude 12° as indicative roughly of the southern boundary of Asoka's

7 H. Le Fanu, A Manual of the Salem District, Vol. I (1883), p. 16; S. K. Aiyangar, Śēran Vañji (1940), pp. 96 and 102. 8 Le Fanu, op. cit., pp. 21-23. '9 J.R.A.S., 1918, p. 542.

6 LIMITS OF CHOĻAMAŅDALAM empire. In other words, the whole of Tondamandalam was included in that empire.

Northern Limit of the Chola Country. Asoka mentions the Cholas, not the people of Tramiradesa or the Tamil country. Therefore their northern boundary was North Vellar, the traditional limit Secondly, Patañjali men- tions four South Indian political units: Pandva, Chōļa, Chera and Kanchi.10 The interval between his contem .. porary, Pushyamitra Sunga, and Asoka is 232-188=44 years. and therefore the Kanchi region must have been separate from the Chola country in the time of Asoka. Thirdly, the Periplus supports that separateness; Para 60 runs as follows: " Among the market towns of these countries and the harbors where the ships put in from Damarica and from the north, the most important are, in order as they lie, first Camara, then Poduca, then Sopatma; in which there are ships of the country eoasting along the shore as far as Damarica; ... . those which make the voyage to Chryse and to the Ganges are .... very large. There are imported into these places every. thing made in Damarica, and the greatest part of what is brought at any time from Egypt comes here, together with most kinds of all the things that are brought from Damarica and of those that are carried through. Paralia".11 Here the region in which were situated Camara, Poduca and Sopatma is differentiated from Damarica and from "the Coast Country, which lies on a bay," i.e. the Choļa country. Camara seems to be

10 Ibid., pp. 541-42. 11 W. H. Schof, The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, 1912, DD. 46-47. .

PULINDAS= KURUMBAS 7

identical with Ptolemy's Carmara, an inland town in the Parali of the Soretai; his Poduca was in the country of the Arouarnoi. Sopatma has been identified with Mar- kānam. Therefore two at least of the three places mentioned in the Periplus belonged to Tondamandalam, the importance of which in Chinese oversea trade is vouched for by Pan Kou.12 Therefore the Periplus ar 3 Ptolemy's Geography support the separateness of Tonda- mandalam from the Chola country. Fourthly, if Tonda- mandalam was no part of the Chola country before Karikāla Choļa, who occupied it in the age of Asoka! Rock Edict XIII mentions the Yavanas, Kāmbōjas, Nābhapantis, Bhojas, Pitinikas, Āndhras and Pulindas, and this order of enumeration should not be disturbed. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar remarks: "It is true that the Pulindas were not confined to one single district, but are mentioned as occupying various separate provinces. But the fact that in Rock Edict XIII they have been asso- ciated with the Andhras shows that we have to place them somewhere to the north or the north-east of the Andhras." 13 Why should the Pulindas be Jocated to the north or north-east of the Andhras and not to the south of them? Dr. Bhandarkar imagined the Chola kingdom as extending to the Krishna. The Pulindas are mentioned by Asoka after the Pitinikas and the Andhras and should therefore be located to the south of the Krishnā. The Aitareya Brahmona mentions the Andhras, Pundras, Sabaras and Pulindas as Chandalas descended from Viśvāmitra (VII. 18). The Mahābharata says that Saha-

12 K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, Foreign Notices of South India, 1939, pp. 44-45. 13 D. R. Bhandarkar, Aśoka, 1925, p. 35.

PULINDAS = KURUMBAS deva vanquished the Pulindas, proceeded southwards, fought with the Pandya king, defeated him, and moved northwards to Kishkindha (II. 32. 17). The Ramayana in connection with Sugriva's search for Sita mentions the Andhras, Pundras, Cholas, Pandyas and Keralas14 The Pulindas and the Pundras are bracketed with hill tribes.15 The term Pulinda is defined as a variety of Chandālas (The Amarakosa-Sudravarga : चण्डामेदा: किरातशबर- पुलिन्दा म्लेच्छजातयः) " Ptolemy's Agriophagoi ... indicates that the Pulinda was a tribe that subsisted on raw flesh and roots or wild fruits."16 The Sabaras may be. identified with " the aboriginal Śavaras, a wild rare who live in the woods and jungles without any fixed habitations, and whose country extended as far southward as the Pennar River'17 We have seen Ptolemy's reference to the Arouarnoi, identical with the Tamil Aruvalar inhabiting Aruvānādu between the South and North Pennar.18 Tamil tradition as recorded in the Mackenzie MSS. regards the Vedars and the Kurumbars as the earliest inhabitants of Tonda- mandalam, the latter of Kannada origin ousting the former. The term Kurumbar means a wicked people, and the language of the Kurumbars today is allied to Old Canarese.19 The Arthasastra mentions the 5ret grar चण्डालारण्यचरा:। 14 The Ramdyana (Srirangam Edition), Vol V, 41. 13. 15 S. Majumdar Sastri, Cunningham's Ancient Geography, 1924, p. 724. 16 S. Majumdar Sastri: McCrindle's Ancient India as described by Ptolemy, 1927, p. 157. 17 Ibid., p. 173. 18 S. K. Aiyangar, Introduction to R. Gopalan's History of the Pallavas of Kanchi, 1928, p. xif. 19 A. F. Cox, Manual of North Arcot District, 1895, p. 221. .

PULINDAS = KURUMBAS 9

The term Pulinda occurs twice in the Raghuvamśa (XVI, 19 & 32), and the commentators Charitravardhana and Mallinatha regard the terms Pulinda, Kirata and Sabara as synonymous. Therefore we may equate the Pulindas with the Kiratas or hunters; in the Arthasastra also the term Pulinda is used in the same sense according to Dr. R. Shamasastry.20 The term Kurumba means hun- ter.21 Therefore the Pulindas who were subject to Asoka may be located in the Kurumbabhūmi or Toņdamandalam. Fifthly, the Jain settlements in the Hassan and South Arcot Districts during the Mauryan period can be under- stood better if they were included in the Maurya Empire. Asoka's favour to the Jains is well known, and Bindusāra would have accommodated the followers of his father's final faith in his own empire The Jains of Mysore and 'Tondamandalam would have preferred for their activities a region included in that empire. Their strong position in those parts of South India can be explained better if they had been under Mauryan imperial patronage. Sixthly, the later ascendancy of Buddhism in Tonda- mandalam can be better explained if it had been included in Asoka's empire; cf. Buddhism in Āndhradēśa. Seventhly, in inscriptions giving the genealogy of the Pallavas, Asoka or Asokavarman is mentioned after the mythical names-vide Vayalur Pillar Inscription of Rājasimha : Brahma, Angirasa, . Brihaspati, Śamyu, Bhāradvāja, Drēņa, Aśvatthāman, Pallava, Asoka, Hari- gupta, Arvavarman, Vimala, Koņkaņika, Kālabhartr,

20 R. Shamasastry, Kautiliyam Arthasastram, 1924, p. 46; Kautilya's Arthaśāstra, 1929, p. 45. 21 The Tamil Lericon, Vol. II, Pt. II, 1927, p. 1055.

10 BINDUSĀRA Chūtapallava and Virakūrcha;22 the Kaśākkudi Plates of Nandivarman Pallavamalla; and the Vēlūrpāļayam Plates of Nandivarman III. In the Amarakośa, Aśoka is men- tioned only as the name of a tree, not as a name of Vishnu as in the Vishnusahasranāma. Therefore the mention of a historical name like Asoka, as distinct from a mythological name, in Pallava genealogy is significant; it may be regarded as reinforcing the argumentation here.

Bindusara. Who conquered Tondamandalam if it was within Asoka's empire ? The evidence in favour of Bindusāra is overwhelming. Tāranātha's statement įs specific, and the sixteen kingdoms overthrown by Bindu- sara could be sought for only in Peninsular India. The possibility of his conquest of Tondamandalam as heir- apparent is ruled out by the Aryumañjuśrīmūlakalpa, which says that Bindusāra was a bāla when he was crowned king and that after attaining manhood he became warlike.23 Therefore he must have invaded South India a few years after his accession in c. 301 B.C., say in 298 B.C. and before 278 B.C. The Hathigumpha inscription of Khāravela says with reference to his eleventh regnal year that he dismembered the tramiradēsa- sanghatam, which had been in existence for 113 years and which had been a source of danger to his country.24 If we take Dr. W. W. Tarn's date, 168 B.C., for the Yavana evacuation of Pataliputra in Kharavela's eighth regnal year, and therefore 165 B.C. for his eleventh regnal

22 R. Gopalan, History of the Pallavas of Kanchi, 1928, pp. 49, 185 and 196. 28 K. P. Jayaswal, An Imperial History of India, 1934, p. 16- 24 Epigraphia Indica, XX, pp. 86-89.

KAUȚILYA 11

year, the League of Tamil States must have been founded in 165 +113=278 B.C. Therefore Bindusāra Amitra- ghata's invasion of South India must have provoked that anti-Mauryan Tamil combination. According to the Sangam Literature, the Mauryan invaders advanced as far south as Madura 25 In the light of the victories claimed by the Tamil kings over the Arvan forces we are justified in thinking that the League of 278 B.C. must have expelled the Mauryan army from the Pāņdya and Chola countries, which in consequence enjoyed independence during the reign of Asoka. Further, the partial failure of Bindusara's invasion of South India may account for the fact that he did not attempt the conquest of Kalinga. So Aśoka truly describes it as an unconquered country in his Rock Edict XIII We may further hold that Bindusara must have been accom- panied to South India by Kautilya. His connection with Bindusara is supported by Hemachandra, and the Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa says that Chāņakva served dur- ing three reigns including that of Bindusāra. Therefore the Arthasāstrakāra must have been in office at the commencement of Asoka's reign.26 The probable active participation of the Indian Bismarck in the South Indian expedition of Bindusāra can well explain his title of Dramidāchārya in the sense of an expert in Dravidian affairs, though he belonged to North-Western India, and his Arthasastra is the first work in Sanskrit Literature which gives a comprehensive view of India, though it

25 S. K. Aiyangar, The Beginnings of South Indian History, 1918, pp. 87 and 90. 26 Jayaswal, op. cit., p. 17.

12 FORTUNES OF TONDAMAŅŅALAM

cannot be held that the geographical outlook of that work is predominantly South Indian as Dr. Jolly holds. Asoka and After. If Tondamandalam was a southern province of Asoka, we need not question the statement of Yuan Chwang that that emperor erected topes in the Kāñchī region.27 In any case, the acculturation of Tondamandalam must have been the work of Asoka and his missionaries rather than of Karikāla Choļa and his officers. After the death of Asoka was asserted the independence of Kalinga and Āndhradēsa, and Toņda- mandalam must have followed suit. Its new political position must have remained intact in the second century B.C .; vide Patañjali's reference to it. Its importance in connection with oversea trade including its relations with China in that century is clear from the account of Pan Kou and from the Periplus. The warlike activity of Khāravela of Kalinga in 165 B.C. could have affected Tondamandalam only temporarily. He aimed merely at warding off the danger to his kingdom emanating from the increasingly strong Tamil League. He was a knight- errant who shed his brilliance in three directions, without hankering after annexation or the consolidation of his position. We do not know when exactly Tondamandalam came under the Andhras. Karikāla Choļa's conquest of it in the second century A.D. must have contributed to its prosperity, though he could not be regarded as a pioneer in acculturation as far as Tondamandalam is concerned. Its importance revealed in Pan Kou's account and in the Manimekhalai and the Periplus cannot be attributed to a ruler belonging to a century not earlier than the second. 27 Watters, op. cit .. II, p. 226.

PRINCIPLES OF IDENTIFICATION 13 .

Samudragupta's Dakshināpatha Expedition. The ques- tion is whether Samudragupta set foot on the soil' of Tondamandalam, and a proper answer to it can be given only after identifying on definite principles the place- names in Dakshinapatha mentioned in the Allahabad Pillar inscription of that emperor. In connection with the problem of identification, the following points have got to be remembered. (a) We are concerned with the Dakshiņāpatha expedition of Samudragupta, and no identification of places with places outside that region may be made. (b) Secondly, it is said in the record that Samudragupta captured and liberated the rajas mentioned and all other kings of Dakshinapatha. Therefore the personal names mentioned are those of kings and rulers of men, not those of officers or mere soldiers. (c) Thirdly, to interpret the record in such a way as to confine the expedition to the Eastern Dakhan is to do violence to the responsible claim that the whole of Dakshināpatha came under Samudragupta, though we are not inclined to say that the kings of Dakshināpatha without a single excep- tion felt his irresistible might as Dr. Hoernle thinks. The Periplus confines the term Dachinabades to the territory, coastal and inland, south of Barygaza up to Naura and Tyndis, the first markets of Damarica.28 Therefore it is untenable to confine Samudragupta's warlike activity in Dakshiņāpatha to Kalinga and coastal Āndhradēsa. (d) Fourthly, the order in which kingdoms or their capitals are mentioned should not be tampered with. Therefore in identifying a place-name, we should look for its location near the previous place-name, avoiding Jong jumps and bearing in mind that the conqueror could not 28 Schoff, op. cit., pp. 48-44.

14 PRINCIPLES OF IDENTIFICATION

beexpected to march always southward. Mahādaņdanāyaka Harisena who composed the prasasti must be credited with the good sense to mention the kingdoms conquered by his master in the South in a particular order so that his generation and the succeeding ones might appreciate his achievements correctly. Therefore we must assume that the order of enumeration is the geographical order, just as the chronological order is observed in describing the Dakshināpatha expedition between the first and second wars in Āryavarta. Much speculation is encouragid by the tendency to treat lines 19 and 20 in prose as contain- ing a jumble of place-names, a tendency justifiable only if we had got to do with verses. (e) Lastly, the total number of kings mentioned is 12, not 11. There is no reason to suppose that Svāmidatta is associated with two places-Pishțapura and Mahendragiri-Kottūr; are both his capitals or his strongholds? Did not the ruler of Kāñchī, or other princes, possess more than one strong- hold! If there was the necessity to clarify the location of Kottūr, why are Kosala and other regions not dealt with similarly! Therefore it is natural and grammatical to recognise two rulers instead of one in the compound पैछपुरकम हेन्द्रगिरि कौट्टूरकस्व्रामिद्त्त Moreover, the dis- tance between Pithapuram and Mahendragiri-Kottūr is so great that we need defmite proof that Svamidatta was master of an extensive territoy like Vishņugopa of Kañchi.

Coming to the problem of identification, South Kosala is Eastern C. P. from Amarkaņtak to Kānker-the Chhattisgarh Division consisting of the Drug, Bilaspur and Raipur Districts. At Sirpur in the Raipur District

SAMUDRAGUPTA'S ROUTE 15

there are archaeological remains assignable to the Gupta period.29 The location of Mahākāntāra must be guided by the geographical position of Pishtapura, and it may be identified with Kanker and Bastar.30 Yuan Chwang passed through that region in his progress to the Andhra country. The interval between Samudragupta and Yuan Chwang is less than 300 years. The Chinese Pilgrim's route to Andhra. is illuminating in this connection. He refers to the utter depopulation of Kalinga in the past and its scanty population in his own time. From there he travelled through forest regions to Dakshina Kosala, and thence travelling south through a forest to Andhra.31 Ker(a)la must have been between Bastar and Pishtapura, and may be identified with Cherla (Nūgūr Taluk, East Godāvarī District) on the Tel near its junction with the Godāvarī. Pishtapura or Pitha- puram (East Godāvarī District) must have been Samudra- gupta's first conquest on the coast of the Eastern Dakhan, as in the case of Pulakeśin II later. Kotțūra is Kotțūru near Tuņi (East Godāvarī District). Cross- ing the Godavarī Samudragupta' must have reached Erandapalla, which may be identified with (Endapalle, Errampalle or) Erraguntapalle in the Chintalapūdi Taluk of the West Godavari District,32 and the kingdom must have extended in a south-westerly direction. Beyond that kingdom, probably on the banks of the Krishnā

29 Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1908, Central Provinces, p. 20. 30 Jayaswal, History of India, 150 A.D. to 350 A.D., 1933, p. 137. 31 Watters, II, pp. 198, 220 and 209. 32 Alphabetical List of Villages in the Taluks and Districts .of the Madras Presdency, 1928, p. 307.

16 SAMUDRAGUPTA'S ROUTE

(North Krishna District), Samudragupta must have met. Vishnugopa of Kañchī, and we know that the early Pallava records are found in the Guntur and Bellary Districts. The capital of Avamukta must have been Pithunda,33 a place mentioned by Ptolemy, which may be located between Masulipatam and Bezwada in the South Krishņā District. Vengi is Peddavēgi, Ellore Taluk, West Godavarī District. Crossing the Krishnā Samudra- gupta must have reached Pālakka or Pākkai between Udayagiri and Venkatagiri in the Nellore District.34 Now the question is where is Devarashtra, in the Vizagapatam District35 or in the Satara District! The distance between Palakka on the one hand and Yella- manchili in the Vizagapatam District and Khānapūr in the Satara District on the other is more or less the same. The Dakshiņāpatha expedition of Samudragupta would be unreal to a great extent if he did not cover the ground in the Western Dakhan. Moreover, there is at Devrāshta or Devarāshtra in the Khanapur subdivision of the Sātāra District a temple dedicated to Samudreśvara.36 Therefore the case for Devarashtra in the Satara District is stronger than that for Devarashtra in the Vizagapatam District. The last place-name is Kusthalapura, which must be identified with some place in Dakshiņāpatha above Sātāra; its identification with a place in Kathia-

33 Jayaswal, op. cit., p. 138. 34 The Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. I, 1925, p. 686. 35 G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, 1920, p. 60. 36 Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidenry, Vol. XIX, 1885, pp. 463-65.

SAMUDRAGUPTA'S ROUTE 17

war37 is objectionable because we are concerned with a place in Dakshinapatha. On the same ground we have to reject Dr. Barnett's identification of Kusthalapura with Kutțalūr, near Polūr, North Arcot District.38 We may think that the place in question is कुशावती or कुशस्थ or Ramnagar, south of the Vindhyas and on the southe bank of the Narmadā, near Mandlā (C. P.).

Samudragupta's military operations on the East Coast must have been confined to the East Godāvarī, West Godāvarī, Krishņa and Nellore Districts. He had nothing to do with the Vizagapatam or Ganjam District. There are no grounds for supposing that one or more con- federacies39 confronted him. He must have defeated the kings mentioned, though their capitals need not have been converted into battle-fields. After their libera- tion he must have gone to their chief cities, which must have witnessed ceremonies of reinstatement. Therefore Samudragupta must have visıted Kāñchī from Pālakka and gone to the Western Dakhan via the Bellary District in the possession of the Pallavas of Kañchi. Therefore his connection with Tondamandalam rests on no slender basis. It is said, however, that he was defeated because his alleged act of liberation of the so-called defeated princes would be ununderstandable if he had really conquered them, and secondly because he did not annex the con- quered territories. If he had been defeated, he would not have entered Tondamandalam at all. But the Allahabad

37 I.H.Q., ibrd., p. 687. 38 Ibid., p. 254. 39 Jouveau-Dubreuil, op. cit., p. 61; R. N. Dandekar, A History of the Guptas, 1941, p. 55; Jayaswal: op. cit., p. 139. 0-2

18 SAMUDRAGUPTA'S SUCCESS

Pillar Inscription distinguishes clearly between his policy of reinstatement of fallen princes in Dakshiņapatha and his policy of uprooting them in Aryavarta. Further, the record reiterates the policy of liberation in two places: line 23-" whose fame was generated by establishing many royal families, fallen and deprived of sovereignty "; line 26-" whose officers were always employed in restoring the wealth of the various kings who had been conquered by the strength of his arms ".40 The Arthasastra recognises the rore of the Dharmavijayi. Alexander the Great did not extermmate Poros but behaved towards him like a Dharmavijayī and even added to his dominions. Moreover. Samudragupta in order to perform the aśvamedha was not obliged to annex the territories of the conquered princes; conquest, not annexation, must precede the horse-sacrifice If however Samudragupta was defeated in Dakshināpatha, the record of his success on an Asokan column would become the record of a living lie, more infamous than the Monumentum Ancyranum of the Roman emperor Augustus. But almost all scholars have agreed not to countenance the theory of Samudra- gupta's defeat in Dakshinapatha and of his ignominious retreat.41

Why Samudragupta invaded Dakshiņāpatha. As re- gards the causes of Samudragupta's invasion of Dakshiņā- patha, we are told on the one hand that he was a high- minded sovereign who regarded the performance of aśvamedha as a means of salvation; he had no idea of annexation in South India, and it was his role of a

40 O.I.I., Vol. III, DD. 10-17. 41 Jouveau-Dubreutl, op. cit., DD. 60-61.

CAUSES OF WARS 19

digvijayi, preparatory to the celebration of the horse- sacrifice, that brought him into conflict with Dakshiņā- patha. On the other hand it is said that he was an aggressively ambitious monarch who regarded kingdom- taking as the business of kings.42 In other words, Samudragupta was a cross between Mars and Machia- velli. But "born aggressor nations never existed .. The spirit of agression is not the cause of major wars." 43

The causes of wars in Ancient India are difficult to state precisely and fully because of the defects of the available sources of history. As regards mediaeval India, when Ferishta mentions the causes of the wars between the Rayas of Vijayanagar and the Sultans of the Dakhan, they are trifling, as for example, the attempt of Devaraya I to abduct the beautiful and accomplished daughter of a gold- smith of Mudgal in 1406. On the other hand, Tabātabāi regards the Bahmani campaigns agamnst Vijavanagar as jhads and does not trouble about the special causes. At the present day the Nazis say that they are fighting for lebensraum or hving-space. The doctrine of lebensraum is much older than Hitler and may be found in the pages of Fichte, List, Ratzel, Naumann, Bernhardi and Moeller van den Bruck. Similarly the other Nazi doctrines may be traced back from Hitler to Herder, who started writing his work on the philosophy of history in 1783. But we regard the Nazi war as the outcome of their terrible ideology founded on Racialism and Narcism. For under- standing the causes of the first and second World Wars, we have to dive deep into European History, and some

42 V. A. Smith, The Early History of India, 1914, p. 281. 43 The New Review, 1942, pp. 113 and 116.

20 CAUSES OF WARS European problems at the present day require to be placed in their historical setting if we are to understand them. Even where the facts necessary for a judgment are avail- able, differences of opinion exist and are to some extent inevitable. Ultimately wars are caused by the Old Adam in man, but we want to get at the objective causative factors. As Burke says, in dealing with men, whose motives and needs are complex, no simple explanation may be sustained. Machiavellism alone cannot adequately explain wars, particularly wars of the type of jhads or crescentades, mulkgiris and digvijayas. Human nature is complex, and how can it operate under the exelusive influence of Machiavellism! Further, Hobbes's concep- tion of human nature is " outrageously false,"44 and he goes to the extent of saying that we hate those among our equals from whom we have rereived benefits which cannot be requited 45 A Frenchman said that we derive pleasure from the misfortunes of our best friends On the other hand, Locke presents us with a different picture of human nature, of man characterised by reason and good will to his fellow-men. He regards the aggressor as nothing better than a wild beast. Even in the case of the just conqueror, his rights are limited to compensation for injury previously done to him. He has no right to rule over the vanquished without their consent freely given, and if he rules without sueh consent, his yoke may be justly overthrown whenever a favourable opportunity presents itself.46 But Locke's epitome of righteousness is

44 Hobbes, The Leviathan, (Oxford), 1929 edition, p. IX. 45 Ibid., p. 76. 46 Locke, Of Civil Government ( Everyman's Library ), DD. 207-15.

SAMUDRAGUPTA'S AIM 21

pitched in an idealistic key. In history we find the son of a usurper treated as the rightful king and the law of prescription applied to conquests wrongly made; hence practical justice supersedes ideal justice, and attempts are made to revive old empires, to recover lost possessions, etc.

If Samudragupta conducted a digvijaya in Dakshiņā- patha in order merely to vindicate his position as supreme ruler prior to the performance of aśvamedha, he was in modern language an aggressor perhaps worse than the annexationist, because if he had annexed the conquered country, he might have healed the wounds inflicted by him as Asoka did in the case of Kalinga. But digijayas were not treated as improper in the age of Samudragupta, and benefits might accrue from the nominal subordination of the conquered to the conqueror. Digvijayas might be undertaken, not out of personal or dynastic motives, but in order to unify the country so that it might stand against the foreigner; it is however difficult to prove that the conqueror was actuated by altruistie motives.

Samudragupta conducted his Dakshiņāpatha expedition soon after his position was firmly established at Pātali- putra and in his other ancestral territories. So it appears that he wanted to assert his rights as the occupant of the imperial throne Since he knew the history of aśramedha, he must have known the history of Indian empires-Andhra and Maurya. The Andhra conquest of Pațaliputra and the Mauryan conquest of the Dakhan must have influenced Samudragupta, who however did not imitate the Maurvan annexationist. He probably aimed at punishing the successor-states to the Andhra Empire, and reviving the Maurva Empire in his own

82 PULAKEŚIN II

manner. Therefore Samudragupta, the emperor of Pațaliputra, walked broadly in the footsteps of his imperial predecessors. In other words, he carried out the traditional policy in his own way. The Andhra imperialists would have justified their post-Mauryan imperialism in the light of the imperialism of the Mauryas Similarly, the Mauryas could have quoted the example of the Nandas In dealing with questions of this kind, when our sources are not ample, we are not justified in assming that ancient Indian conquerors were un- scrupulous aggressors. Pulakeśin II. Pulakeśin II Chāļukya is usually regardeđ as a digvijayi of the aggressive type, who set the ball rolling of Chalukya-Pallava hostility No doubt the series of historical invasions of Tondamandalam by the Dakhan powers was inaugurated by the greatest of the Western Chāļukyas of Bādāmi, but his Aihole inscription of A D. 634 says that " the lord of the Pallavas ... had opposed the risc of his power "47 Here is the clue to his campaign against Mahendravarman I The same record refers to Pulakesin's conquest of the Kadambas and the Gangas, and to the conquest of Banavasi hy his father Kīrtivarman I The Kadamba line of Banavāsi was founded in the latter half of the fourth century AD by Mayūraśarman, who exchanged the kusa grass for the sword, rebelled against Pallava authority, and subsequently became feudatory to it. Pulakeśin I, the father of Kirti- varman I, was a feudatory of Harivarman Kadamba (537-47), and he revolted against him and established his own dynasty at Bādāmi about A.D. 547. Harivarma,

47 E.I., Vol. VI, pp. 7-12.

PULAKEŚIN II 23

the Western Ganga king, established his power at Talakad about 435, though in subordination to the Pallavas. Madhava III (460-500) married a Kadamba princess. Durvinīta (540-600) however came into conflict with the Pallavas. Thus the relations between the Pallavas and the Kadambas and between the Kadambas and the Western Gangas were close; similarly were the relations between the Pallavas and the Western Gangas in spite of their clash in the latter half of the sixth century A D. In these circumstances the Pallavas of Kañchī must have opposed the rise of the Chāļukvas under the Pulakesin I and his successors. Conflicting interests and misunderstandings arising out of dynastic and personal needs caused wars, and it is not fair to regard all ancient Indian wars as of the unscrupulously aggressive brand. " Strictly speaking, all the causes of war are psychological .. The psychological causes of of war have their root in the unconscious ... Dr. Glover asks for fifty years of intensive research into the human mind. Only then, he thinks, shall we know enough to be able to act with any real prospect of getting rid of the tendencies that make for war." 48

Buddhism in Tondamandalam. Like early Āndhra history, the early history of Tondamandalam was shaped by Buddhist influences. Corresponding to the artistic gems at Amarāvatī and Nagārjunikoņda there is in the case of Tondamandalam the gem of the Manimēkhalai, which makes Kanchi the metropolis of Buddhism in South India. Just as Āndhradēśa produced Nāgārjuna, Toņda- 48 Aldous Huxley in The Causes of War by W. R. Inge and others, 1935, pp. 48, 57 and 58.

24 BUDDHISM IN TONDAMAŅDALAM mandalam produced Aravaņa Adigaļ, Āryadeva, Ding- naga and Dharmapala, the Vice-Chancellor of the Nalanda University.49 Though Buddhism declined in Āndhradēśa after the Ikshvākus (c. A. D. 300), its position in Tondamandalam was strong till the days of Yuan Chwang (A.D. 640). He says : " There were more than 100 Buddhist monasteries with above 10,000 Brethren all of the Sthavira School. The Deva- Temples were above 80, and the majority belonged to the Digambaras." 50 As regards India as a whole, the Chinese Pilgrim mentions the adherents of Hīnayāna as numbering 96,500; Mahāyāna, 32,000, both, 54,500; total, 183,000. In the monasteries Hīnayanism was predominant because Mahayanism laid less stress on monasticism. In the seventh century AD three Hinayana sects were conspicuous-the Theravadins, the Sarvastivadins, and the Sammitiyas, the last numbering nearly 44,000 out- numbered the other two sects. Yuan Chwang speaks of the local rather than of the general decline of Buddhism in India, but of its marked decline in North-Western India and South India, the only exception in the latter case being Tondamandalam. In the Andhra country Buddhism started declining from the 4th century A.D., thanks to the Brihatphalāyanas, the Ānandas, the Sālankāyanas, and the Vishnukundins. Yuan Chwang notes that there were about 20 Buddhist monasteries and more than 3,000 monks in the Vengi kingdom (A.D. 639).51 At Dhnya- kataka though there were many monasteries, most of them

49 S. K. Aiyangar, The Buddhism of Manimekhalai (B. C. Law, Buddhistic Studies, 1931, pp. 24-25.) 50 Watters, op. cit., p. 226. 51 Ibid., D. 209.

BUDDHISM IN TONDAMAŅDALAM 25

were untenanted; only 20 of them were used by 1,000 monks. There were about 100 Deva-Temples and innu- merable followers of various sects.52 In the Western Dakhan the Vakatakas turned the tide against Buddhism in the 4th century A.D. Yuan Chwang mentions the existence in A.D. 641 of 100 monasteries and about 5,000 monks, and says that the people of Mahārāshtra " com- bined orthodoxy and heterodoxy."53 In the Kannada country the fortunes of Buddhism were eclipsed in the 4th century A.D. by the Kadambas of Banavāsi, the line founded by the doughty and militant champion of Brahmanical orthodoxy, Mayurasarman. The Western Gangas of Taļakād rose to power in the same century, and the power of this Jain dynasty lasted in Mysore till the Choļa conquest of Talakad in A D. 1004. In the Pāndya country, according to Yuan Chwang, there were a few Buddhist monks, and the numerous monasteries were in ruins, but there were hundreds of Deva-Temples and numerous Digambaras.54 In Yuan Chwang's Chola country also the Buddhist monasteries were in a ruined condition; only some of them were tenanted by monks, but there were several tens of Deva-Temples.55 Thus in Tondamandalam alone was the Buddhism of South India conspicuous. There were therefore three elements in the culture of Tondmandalam-Buddhist-Jain, Tamil and Brahmanical. The great Pallavas of Kanchi who were the protagonists of Brahmanism, contributed to the har- monious blending of the three streams of culture, and

52 Ibid., p. 214. 53 Ibid., p. 239. 54 Ibid., p. 228. 55 Ibid., p. 224.

26 BUDDHISM IN TONDAMAŅDALAM this cultural harmony was the great inheritance of the Cholas of Tanjore and Gangaikondachoļapuram, before whose advent Tondamandalam became ripe for their constructive labours in the field of local self-government and of higher education. In spite of the decline of Buddhism from the latter half of the seventh century AD, thanks to the Pallavas and the Cholas and to the Saiva and Vaishnava saints, its influence is not negligible.56 The great part plaved by Buddhism in Tondamandalam up to the middle of that century cannot be forgotten in the study of its subsequent history.

56 V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Buddhism in Tamil Lite- rature (B. C. Law, op. cit., pp. 673 and foll.)

LECTURE II

The Mahasabha. We study here the perfected type of rural self-governing institutions under the later Pallavas of Kanchī and the Choļas of Tanjore and Gangaikonda- choļapuram. The Pallava and Chola inscriptions analysed below refer to the Mahāsabha or its activities from the 8th to the 13th century A.D. We shall call them the Mahasabha inscriptions.

Pallava Inscriptions. The Pallava Mahāsabhā inserip- tions are found in not less than seventeen places, seven belonging to the Chingleput District, six to North Arcot and Chittoor, one to South Arcot, one to Tanjore and two to Trichinopolv, total, 14 for Tondamandalam and 3 for Chöļamandalam Seven of the place-names in this connec- tion reappear in the Chola list-Uttaramerur, Tiruvorriyūr. Kūram, Tiruttaņi, Ukkal, Tirukkoyilūr and Anbil. These records belong to the 8th and 9th centuries and exhibit the variyam system in its embryonic stage,1 but the inscriptions of Dantivarman Pallava dated in 782, 784 and 786 A.D. reveal the well-developed character of the Mahāsabha in general.2 Their significance can be fully understood only if the institutions noticed in them are regarded as the precursors of the institutions perfected by the Cholas.

1 C. Minakshi, Administration and Social Life under the Pallavas, 1938, p. 126. 2 K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, Studies in Cola History and Administration, 1932, pp. 107 and 118.

28 MAHĀSABHĀ INSCRIPTIONS Chola Inscriptions. (a) Numbers. The 646 inscrip- tions analysed here are distributed as follows :- Chingleput District, 137; North Arcot and Chittoor, 65 +7=72; South Arcot and Pondicherry, 77+21=98; Tanjore, 234; Trichinopoly and Pudukkottai, 65+1= 66; Madura, 1; Tinnevelly, 16; Travancore, 8; Salem, 4; and Mysore, 10 ; the total for Tondamandalam is 307, Chōļamandalam, 300; Pāņdyamaņdalam, 25; Końgu- Kannadam, 14. The Tanjore District has 234 inscriptions on the whole, but only 16 in the period of Parāntaka I, 15 during the interval between Parāntaka I and Rāja- rāja I, 23 in the period of Rājarāja I, 22 in the period of Rājēndra I, 16 during the interval between Rājēndra I and Kulottunga I, and 22 in the period of Kulottunga I. For these six periods the figures for the Trichinopoly District are 5, 1, 5, 8, 5 and 7, and for Pudukkottai, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 Therefore the total for Choļamandalam from Parāntaka I down to Kulottunga I is 145. The figures for Tondamandalam are as follows :- Chingleput, 11. 34, 20, 16, 13 and 16; North Arcot and Chittoor, 14, 13, 15, 3, 10 and 1; South Arcot and Pondicherry, 3, 8, 16, 12, 10 and 18; total, 233. Therefore during the period in question the activity of the Mahāsabhā was greater in Tondamandalam than in Choļamandalam. Let us look at the figures from another point of view. In the Chingleput District 137 inscriptions are found in 32 places, and therefore the average for a place is 137/32=4-3; for North Arcot and Chittoor, the average is 72/23=3.1 ; for South Arcot and Pondicherry, 98/28=3.5; for Tondamandalam as a whole, 3.6; for Tanjore, 234/74=3-1; for Trichinopoly and Puduk- kottai. 66/22 = 3: for Cholamandalam as a whole. 3 05.

MAHĀSABHĀ INSCRIPTIONS 29

The average for Tondamandalam and Cholamandalam together is 3.3, and the latter falls short of it. Let us survey the figures from yet another point of view. Taking into consideration only the 50 places which have four inscriptions or more each, the total fcr Tondamandalam is 216, and the average for a place is 216/24=9; for Choļamaņdalam, 202/26= 7-7. Taking only places having 10 or more inscriptions each, we have for Uttara- mērūr, 56, Tiruvāduturai, 33; Tribhuvani, 16; Tirup- pugaļūr, 15; Brahmadēsam, 12; Tiruvorriyūr, 11; Tiru- vallam, 11; Tiruverumbūr, 11; and Tiruvidaimarudūr 10; the average for Tondamandalam is 106/5=21 and for Choļamandalam 69/4=17. We have divided Chōļa history from Parāntaka I down to Kulottunga I into six periods, and the following places possess records belonging to three or more of those periods. Madhurantakam, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 1; Tennēri, 0, 0, 4, 0, 1, 2; Tirumukkūdal. 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1; Tiruvorriyūr, 0, 0, 0, 1, 7, 1; Uttaramērūr, 7, 27, 5, 8, 0, 1; Brahmadēśam, 3, 3, 1, 0, 4, 0; Takkōlam, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1; Ukkal, 1, 2, 2, 1,0, 0; Tribhuvani, 0,0,0, 3, 5, 7; Eņņāyiram, 0, 0, 0, 2, 1, 2; Erumūr, 1, 0, 2. 1, 2, 0; Kīļūr, 0, 3, 1. 1, 0, 1, Udaiyārgudi. 1, 1, 1, 3. 0, 0; Puñjai (Kidārankondān), 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, Šembiyanmahā- dēvī, 0, 3, 2, 2, 1, 0; Tirukkoļambiyūr, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0; Tiruppugaļūr, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 6; Tiruvāduturai, 6, 0, 5, 5, 0, 5; Tiruvidaîmarudūr, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1; Tiruviļakkudi, 0, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0; Kāmarasavalli, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2; and Kilap- paļuvūr, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1; total, 13 places and 132 inscrip- tions in Tondamandalam and 9 and 71 in Chōļamandalam. Thus the primacy of Tondamandalam in the history of the Mahāsabhā is clear

30 MAHĀSABHĀ INSCRIPTIONS (b) Concentration. Another noteworthy point is that the Mahasabha was concentrated in certain areas. In the Chingleput District we find its activity in 32 places: 13 in the Conjeeveram Taluk-Ārpākkam, Kanchīpuram, Kāvantaņdalam, Kūram, Māgaral, Paļaiyaśīvaram, Paran- dūr, Pullallūr, Śiruvākkam, Tennērı, Tirumukkūdal, Tirupparuttikkunram and Tiruppulivanam; 4 in the Madhurāntakam Taluk - Kadappēri, Madhurāntakam, Perumbēr and Uttaramērūr; 4 in the Srīperumbūdūr Taluk-Maņimangalam, Piļļaipākkam, Šivankūdal and Somangalam; 4 in the Saidapet Taluk-Pādi, Tirumullai- vāyil, Tiruvorriyur and Vēlachchēri; 4 in the Chingleput Taluk-Kāyār, Nattam, Tırukkaļukkunram and Tirn- vadandai; 2 ın the Tıruvallūr Taluk-Kūvam and Tirup- pachchur, and 1 mn the Ponneri Taluk-Tiruppālaivanam. We find a major concentration around Conjeeveram, from Uttaramērūr to Pullalūr and from Kūram to Paļaiva- sīvaram and Tirumukkūdal, and a minor concentration encircling Madras-Velachcheri to the south, Padi and Tirumullaivavil to the west and Tiruvorriyur to the north. A large number of inscriptions belonging to the North Arcot District are found in the Arkonam and Cheyvār Taluks-Takkōlam, Tiruppārkkadal, Brahmadēam, Ukkal, etc .; the Mahāsabhā area extended from Tiruttaņi to Ukkal and from Takkölam to Tiruppārkkadal, and was a continuation of the major concentration area in the Chingleput District. Therefore the grand Mahāsabha area of Tondamandalam stretched from Tiruttani to Ukkal and Uttaramērur and from Tiruppārkkadal to Tennēri. In the South Arcot District the area in question extended from Ennāyiram and Tribhuvani to Udaiyārgudi and · Chidambaram. The Mahāsabha area in Tanjore is the

MAHĀSABHĀ INSCRIPTIONS 31

triangle with its apex at Negapatam, the base being the Coleroon, particularly the Mayavaram, Nannilam, Kumbhakoņam, Pāpanāsam and Tanjore Taluks; in the Trichinopoly District from Śrinivāsanallūr and Mahā- dānapuram to Uraiyūr and from Tirumalavādi to Ālam- bākkam and Tiruverumbur. In the Choļamandalam the Mahāsabhā was active particularly on the banks of the Kaverī and the Coleroon; in the South Arcot District, on the banks of the South Pennar and the North Vellār, in the Chingleput and North Arcot Districts, on the banks of the Palar and the Cheyyar. Lastly, in the Tinnevelly District there are 16 inscriptions in 9 places, most of which are in the neighbourhood of Tinnevelly Town, which is one of them: Sermādēvī, Maņappadaivīdu, Ševilippēri. Gangaikondān, Attālanallūr, Mannārkovil (both in the Ambāsamudram Taluk), Āttūr near the mouth of the Tāmraparņī, and Vijavanārāvaņam near Nangunēri. Many of these places are on the banks of that river. Manur is near Tinnevelly to the north of it and to the west of Gangaikondn, but its importance belongs to the 9th century.

(c) Relatire Value. We have so far seen the number and distribution of the Mahasabha inseriptions. An analysis of the contents of the records shows the supreme importance of Tondamandalam in the history of the Mahāsabha. The Choļamandalam inscriptions early and later, particularly the latter, are valuable, but the records at Talaināyar, Ayyampēțțai, Šembiyanmahādēvī, Śēnga- nūr, Tirumeyāanam, Kumbhakōņam, Tirumalavādi and Mannārgudi are only supplementary to the records in Tondamaņdalam at Uttaramērūr, Tennēri, Tiruvorriyūr,

34 URIGINS OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ

as an oligarchy partly because she would have nothing of that system. The Athenians knew the representative principle but their democracy was direct, and the lot system was widely employed by them. Their perfected democracy of the Periclean age was rendered possible by the resoures of a great empire. They paid those who rendered public service, and modern democracy also requires payment of legislators at any rate as indis- pensable. The question is whether the lot system is democratic. Some classical scholars regard the ancient lot system as not intended to be a democratic device but as a means of ascertaining the will of the gods. But the system may give a chance to anybody irrespective of his qualifications; without the principle of rotation in office, however, it may do injustice to competent candidates. Uttaramērūr avoided the pittalls of the lot system. Origins of the Mahasabha. The predominance of the Mahasabha records from the point of view of their number and quality, the conspicuousness of the Mahāsabha in the period of Parantaka I, and its grand concentration in the Conjeeveram, Arkoņam and Cheyyār Taluks establish a prima facie case for its origin in Tondamandalam. The earliest inscription at Uttaramerur recording the activity of the Mahasabha belongs to c. A. D. 782 in the reign of Dantivarman Pallava. Between that date and 921, more than a dozen inscriptions testify to the progress of the Mahāsabhā at Uttaramērūr.3 Its character as a well-developed mstitution in 782 justifies the view of its origin early in the 8th century. We have seen that in

3 Nilakanta Sastri, Studes, pp. 118-21; The Pandyan King- dom, 1929, p. 98.

ORIGINS OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ 35

the later Pallava period there were Mahasabhas in 14 places in Tondamandalam and in three places in Chola- mandalam, the earliest record belonging to the former region. Therefore the institution originated in Tonda- mandalam during the later Pallava period. A word may be added here on the Mānūr Mahasabha pictured in an inscription of the 35th regnal year of Maran Sadaiyan. " If this Maran Sadaiyan were the same as Varaguna Maharaja, as probably he is, then the record may be assigned to about A.D. 800."3 It is also assigned to the period of Varaguna II who ascended the throne in c. A.D 862 4 Assuming that its date is A.D. 800, the Mānūr Mahasabha seems to be a shooting star. Its subse- quent history is unknown, and perhaps it came to grief consequent on the obstructionist tactics of some of its members, mnspite of the penal provisions of the record- a case of premature constitutionalism. Still the value of the record is great as it illustrates the influence in distant places of the Mahāsabhas of Tondamandalam.

Our next question is why did the Mahasabha originate m Tondamandalam? This mstitution can be connected directly neither with the Tamil institutions of the Sangam Age nor with the Northern Indian institutions of the Maurya> and Gupta periods. Regarding the administration of the Pallavas we are told that " while the central administration seems in essence to be administration which has very considerable analogy to the administration of the headquarters, as in the Arthaśāstra generally, we see there is a considerable

4 R. Sewell, The Historical Inscriptions of Southern India (edited by S. K. Aiyangar, 1932), p. 378.

36 ORIGINS OF THE MAHĀSABHA development in rural administration, for which perhaps it would be difficult to find analogies in the Arthasastra."5 It is difficult to believe however that the Arthasastra influenced only the central administration. The Rigvedic village sabhā was a conspicuously active institution presided over by the madhyamāśi, a judicial officer; his designation reminds us of South Indian madhyasthas.6 The Arthasastra stresses the importance of villages and gives a few remarkable details about their administration It is wrong to make a sharp and fundamental distinction between rural and urban administration. The Artha- sastra describes the functions of the Nagaraka or Superintendent of the City. But on the ground that it does not mention the committee system described in detail in the Indica of Megasthenes, a few scholars assign the former to a later age than the 4th century B.C But the committees, municipal and military, dealt with by the Greek ambassador at Pataliputra are prosaically sym- metrical. According to him there was a Board of thirty members for the government of the imperial city and another of thirty for the administration of the imperial army, each divided into six committees of five: Industries, Foreigners, Census, Trade, Manufactures and their sale, and collection of the sales tax; Elephants, Horses, Foot- soldiers, Chariots, Navy, and Transport and Supply. This is only a wide application of the time-honoured panchayat principle. Kauțilya also mentions the four limbs of the army, the navy and the commissariat. Unlike other writers on polity, he is sensible enough to say that

5 S. K. Aiyangar, Evolution of Hindu Administrative Insti- tutions in South India, 1931, p. 129. 6 Nilakanta Sastri, Studies, p. 77.

ORIGINS OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ 37

the Mantriparishad should consist of as many members as the imperial business would require. He deals with Politics as a normative, not as a descriptive science. He lays down general principles and does not descend to details. He says that the four chief divisions of the army-Elephants, Horses, Chariots and Foot-soldiers- should be officered by अनेक मुख्यम् or headship in commission.7 He also refers to बडुमुख्यमनित्यम् i.e. many non-permanent heads.7 In emergencies even the king should act according to the view of the majority of his ministers (feT:) or to what is conducive to success in their opinion.7 Kautilya further says that प्रामवृद्धा's should safeguard बालद्रव्ध (property of minors without guardians), i.e. should function as a Court of Wards, and aagof 7 (temple property). Boundary disputes between two villages should be decided by सामन्ता'S, पंचग्रामी or दशग्रामी; disputes about क्षेत्र (field) by सामन्तग्रामवृद्धा :; if they disagree, several pure and respectable men should decide.7 In the absence of owners of religious buildings, they may be repaired by प्रामा: or पुण्यशीलाः There 1s a reference to a ग्रामिक travelling on the business of the whole village.7 More- over, it is laid down that the king should encourage people who jointly construct buildings for the benefit of the country, who make their villages beautiful {ATHRTTT:), and safeguard their interests.7

The municipal committees mentioned by Megasthenes do not correspond to the variyams of South India; the udāsīna vāriyam of Tiruppārkkadal reminds us of the

7 Shamasastry, Kautilīyum Arthasāstram, pp. 57, 69, 29, 48 168-9. 171 and 173.

38 ORIGINS OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ

committee at Pataliputra concerned with Foreigners. An inscription from Tirumalpuram (North Arcot District). dated in the fourth regnal vear of Rājarāja I, men- tions an officer with a committee of five, who enquired into the affairs of the temple and found evidence of neglect and misappropriation of endowments 8 The absence of any committee of five from Uttaramērūr does not mean that the panchayat principle was unknown to the learned men of that Chaturvedimangalam Panchavat is a word like panchapatram. losing nltimately the signi- ficance of pancha. Practicallv there is no difference between Panchavats in general and the Shadāyats and Dvādasāvats of Uttaramērur: both were committees and might consist of anv number of members. The choice of 30 members both at Uttaramērūr and Pātaliputra is an accidental coincidence. The additional räriyams which functioned at Tiruppārkkadal and Kāvērippākkam could not make the system as such different from that prevailing at Uttaramerur. Therefore the committee organisation is an Indian institution rather than a South. Indian institution. I think that the kudavolai svstem however was devised to suit the conditions of the Chaturvedimangalams of South India. Where are the ideas of local government we may expert the Brahmans of Tondamandalam to be familiar with in the 8th. 9th and ftg My profane. The Pallavas patronised -mostly ideas derived from Sanskrit Eiterdture, sacrt the Horthern cultury, and Kanchi was a great centre of ISTR. NPATRinS )irom the 7th century A.D. . They funded Brahman etthiments on the hanks of rivers,

polas, I, p. 478.

ORIGINS OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ 39

particularly in the neighbourhood of their imperial capital, and encouraged their progress in various directions, without however forgetting Cholamandalam. The Pallava imperial resources were utilised for culture and rural administrative progress. But wars with the Chālukvas and the Pandvas limited the progress of the realm and of the Mahäsabha, which reached the acme of its development under the Cholas, thanks to their greater imperial resources and to their more successful effort in safeguarding the peace of the country. Thus the Pallavas prepared the way for the golden age of the Mahasabha under the Cholas. Moreover, the work done by Buddhism or democratic Brahmanism in Tondamandalam cannot be lost sight of in this connection: it was a potent factor in the progress of the country till the middle of the seventh century A.D. Tondamandalam was the focus of three rays of light, Buddhist-Jain. Brahmanical and Tamil. It is not therefore surprising that the Mahasabha originated and attained the zenith of its progress in Tondamandalam. Moreover. the concentration of Chaturvedimangalams in certain areas, particularly in Tondamandalam. thanks to roval policy, must have acted as a stimulus to their pro- gress, and we find in the Chola period a glorious bazaar of Mahasabhas. Lastly, the role of royal policy in the evolution of the .Mahasabha cannot be regarded as an insignificant factor. The Mahasabha was no spontaneous growth in times of storm and stress, but an institution nurtured hy benevolent royal policy and backed by the resources of a vast and opulent empire. Still it was not a mere creature of the roval will; the conditions prece- dent to its creation and the factors conducive to its smooth working could be shaped by royalty only in an

40 THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ

indirect way. It enjoyed maximum local autonomy con- sistent with the unity and strength of the empire.

The Golden Age of the Mahasabha. The period of exactly 200 years from A.D. 921 to A.D. 1120 may be called the golden age of the Mahasabha. For Paran- taka I's reign we have 28 Mahāsabhā inscriptions in Tondamandalam and 21 in Choļamandalam; during 953-985, there are 55 and 16 respectively. Of these 55 inscriptions, 34 are in the Chingleput District, 13 in the North Arcot District, 7 in the South Arcot District and one in the Pondicherry territory. Rājāditya, the son of Parāntaka I, was the Viceroy of Tondamandalam, and his defeat and death at Takkolam in A.D. 949 resulted in the occupation of Tondamandalam by Krishna III Rāshțrakūța for 15 years, if not for 25 years (943-968). The Rāshtrakūtas were expelled from Tondamandalam by Parāntaka II, the grandson of Parantaka I and father of Rājarāja I. 13 inscriptions of Krıshņa III from his 5th to his 30th regnal year in Tondamandalam show the activities of the Mahāsabhā :- Uttaramērūr, 3; Ukkal, 1; Kāvanūr, 1; Tirukkaļukkunram, 1; Bāhūr, 1; Siddha- lingamadam, 2; Kīļur, 3; and Tirunāmanallūr, 1. The progress of the Mahasabha in Tondamandalam does not seem to have been appreciably affected by its conquest and occupation by Krishņa III, the last great Rāshtrakūta (939-68) whose supremacy in Peninsular India surpassed that of Govinda III (794-814), the greatest of the line, who was supreme in India as a whole.

The reign of Rajaraja I is, from one point of view, of the greatest importance in the history of the Mahasabha; it witnessed the constitution of Mahasabhas in all parts

DECLINE OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ 41

of his extensive empire, and his Mahāsabha records are remarkable for their wide distribution. During the 30 years of his rule (985-1014) we have 91 inscriptions; 51 in Tondamandalam, 28 in Choļamandalam, 8 in Pandyamaņdalam, and 4 in the Kongu-Kannada region; for the reign of Rajendra I (1012-44) the figures are 31, 30, 4 and 6=71; for the interval between Rajendra I and Kulottunga I, 33, 21, 9 and 0=63; for Kulottunga I, 35, 29, 3 and 1=68. The primacy of Tondamandalam is thus maintained to the close of the reign of Kulottunga I (1070-1120). The vast resources of the Cholas and their enlightened policy from Parāntaka I down to Kulōttunga I consolidated the posi- tion of the Mahasabha and made it conspicuous.

Decline of the Mahasabha. For the period 1120 to 1216 we have 28, 61, 0 and 0 = 89 inscriptions, as against those for the period 1014 to 1120-99, 80, 16 and 7=202. The decline of the Mahāsabha in the 12th century is more conspicuous in Tondamandalam than in Choļamandalam, this tendency became stronger in the following century, and the figures for 1216 to 1279 are 12, 28, 0, and 0 = 40. The decline of the Mahasabha in the 12th and 13th centuries is to be explained with reference to the internal troubles of the Chöļa Empire in the 12th century and its external diffi- culties in the 13th century, coupled with the increased activity of gramakanthakas. Early in the reign of Kulottunga I, Ceylon became independent (1075), and towards the close of it Gangavādi ( 1117) and Vengi (1118). The Tamif country as far as Ramēśvaram was raided by Vishņuvardhana Hoysala (1111-41). Troubles

42 DECLINE OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ

in the Pandva country engrossed the attention of the Chōļas from 1169 to 1177 and from 1182 to 1189. The Telugu-Chödas seized Kāñchī, which was however recovered by Kulottunga III about 1196 The growth of feudatory puissance during the 12th centurv weakened the central authoritv. In the 13th century the Pandva troubles revived. and the Chola Empire was overwhelmed by Maravarman Sundara Pandva. Consequently the successors of Kulottunga III were kings onlv in name- Rājarāja III (1216-46) and Rāiendra TII (1246-79). The Pandya imperialism provoked Hovsala intervention in Chola affairs, and Narasimha TT (1220-35) liberated Rajarāja III from prison, into which he had been thrown by his over-mightr rebel-fendatorv of Tondamandalam- Kō-Peruñjińga Somēśvara Hoyśala ( 1235-54 ), the son of Narasimha II. rontinued the policy of his father and established his power at Kannanur near Trichinopoly. Ramanātha Hoysala (1254-95) ruled from Kannanur, and his inseriptions are numerous in the Tanjore and Trichino- poly Districts. Tondamandalam was invaded hy the Hoysalas, the Telugu-Chodas and the Kakativas and an inscrintion of 1245 refers to Uttaramērūr as Gandagopāla- Chaturvēdimangalam, named after a Telugu-Choda chief- tain. In these circumstances the Mahasabha declined. though it must have been in a position to do something for the villagers in the ahsence of the activity of the central government .. Though it could play some part in times of storm and stress, it could not flourish in such times. Therefore the encomiums bestowed on " the little village republies " reflect their minimum activity in neriods of anarchy, but their prosperity would require peace and imperial protection. The Hoysala occupation of the

DECLINE OF THE MAHĀSABHĀ 43

Tamil country must have been prejudicial to its internal progress. Even the heart of the Chola Empire was ill administered. An inscription of 1226 says that Narasimha Hoysala ruined the country and its temples and carried away the images of gods.9 There are references in the inscriptions of the period of decline to the activities of mischief-mongers in villages At Sembivanmahādevī (Tanjore District) night sessions of the Mahasabha were stopped about 1233 because of the inconvenience and the cost of lighting. and the ryarasthi was made that five vears should elapse before one could be re-selected for office and that anybody who defied the rule should be treated as a gramadrohi There are also other instances to show that stasis developed in village administration and called for legislation against gramadrohis.9 and such a development of a general character would weaken rural administration 10 In this connection the fate of the Manur Mahasabha mav be remembered. and Parantaka I's legislation of 921 was directed against qrāmakanthakas There is also evidence in the period of decline of government officials intriguing with local factions and impairing the efficiency of village institutions,10 and further, undue palace influence in operating them had to be discountenanced by penal legislation against persons invoking such influence.9

Higher Education in Tondamandalam: A Buddhist University at Kanchi. In the field of higher education as in that of local government the ground for the fertile- activities of the Cholas was prepared by the Pallavas.

9 Sastri, The Colas, Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 733, 741-2 and 604. 10 Ibid., Part I, pp. 287-8 and 290-91.

-44 THE KĀÑCHĪ UNIVERSITY We have seen the part played by Buddhism in the history of Tondamandalam up to the middle of the seventh century A.D. It produced many scholars of eminence who spread the name and fame of Kāñchi not only in Northern India, but also beyond the seas. The question now is whether we are justified in speaking of a Buddhist University at Kanchi. What is a University? " The notion that a University means a universitas facultatum- a school in which aml the faculties or branches of know- ledge are represented-has, indeed, long since disappeared from the pages of professed historians.11 .... The term which most nearly corresponds to the vague and indefinite English notion of a university as distinguished from a mere school, seminary, or private educational establish- ment, is not universitas, but studium generale; and studium generale means not a place where all subjects are studied, but a place where students from all parts are received11 .... In the main .... the term seems to have implied three characteristics (1) That the school attracted or at least invited students from all parts, not merely those of a particular country or district; (2) that it was a place of higher education; that is to say, that one at least of the higher faculties-theology, law, medicine- was taught there; (3) that such subjects were taught by a considerable number-at least by a plurality-of masters. Of these ideas the first was the primary and fundamental one: a studium generale meant a school of general resort.12 .... To the original conception of a

11 Hastings Rashdall, The Umversitres of Europe in the Middle Ages, 1895, edited by Powicke and Emden in three volumes, 1936, Vol. I, pp. 4-5 and 6. 12 IInd .. pp. 7 and 8.

THE KĀÑCHĪ UNIVERSITY 45

studium generale there was gradually added a vague notion of a certain ecumenical validity for the mastership which it conferred ' 12 The modern University, like the modern representative democracy, is a mediaeval product, and the history of European Universities shows that a University is not necessarily a place providing for courses in universology. It is the concentration of educational effort at a particular place where courses are given in many subjects of general interest by a multiplicity of teachers A University is a real University only if it attracts pupils and teachers from a large area. if not from the whole country or the whole world, and builds up a reputation of a more than local chararter. Therefore we may unquestionably speak of Nālanda as a University. Yuan Chwang says: "The people (of Talopitu) .... esteemed great learning. There were more than 100 Buddhist monasteries with above 10,000 Brethren all of the Sthavira school .... Not far from the south of the capital was a large monastery which was a rendezrous for the most eminent men of the country."13 (Itals. ours) The greatness of that monastery is confirmed by the Mattavilāsaprahasana of Mahēndravarman I. Nāgasēna. the Sakyabhikshu, eulogises the magnificent liberality of the Upāsaka, Śreshțhi Dhanadāsa, the Anāthapiņdika of Kanchī and patron of the Rajavihara. Further the Kapālin's parichārikā (wench) Devasomā refers to the great wealth of the monastery derived from the revenues of many monasteries.14 The Rajavihāra is obviously 13 Watters, op. cit., II, p. 226. 14 Mattavildsaprahasana, Trivandrum edition, 1917, pp. 11-12 and 23; Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, London, Vol. V (1928-80), pp. 706 and 714.

-46 THE KĀNCHĪ UNIVERSITY identical with the large monastery mentioned by Yuan Chwang,15 and must have been founded by the Buddhist kings of Kañchi before Simhavishnu, some of whose names like Asokavarman and Buddhavarman are available. Dingnaga of the 5th century and Dharmapala of the 6th century belonged to Kāñchī and migrated to Nālandā. The Buddhists of Tondamandalam did not lve in a state of isolation; they had intimate contacts with Nālandā and Ceylon. Therefore Kāñchi may be regarded as a Buddhist studrum generale. Yuan Chwang stresses the artistic pro- gress of Andhradesa;16 this emphasis is confirmed by the glories of Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunkoņda. He refers to Malakūta as " indifferent to culture and only good at trade. "16 The Ceylonese Brethren were " perfectly clear in meditation and wisdom." 16 The people of Maharashtra were " fond of learning." 16 Therefore it is clear that the Chinese Pilgrim regarded Kanchi as the greatest Buddhist educational centre of South India, because he refers to its " great learning " and to its being "a rendezvous for the most eminent men of the country." I think we are justified in saying that there was a Buddhist University at Kañchī.

As regards the scholarship of Tondamandalam, we may apply to it the general remarks of Yuan Chwang on Indian scholarship: " There are men who, far seen in antique lore and fond of the refinements of learning, are content in seclusion, leading lives of continence. These

15 Minakshi, op. cit., p. 223. 16 Watters, op. cit., pp. 209 and 214, 228, 234 and 239.

THE KĀÑCHĪ UNIVERSITY 47

come and go outside of the world, and promenade through life away from human affairs. Though they are not moved by honour or reproach, their fame is far spread. The rulers treating them with ceremony and respect cannot make them come to court. Now as the state holds men of learning and genius in esteem, and the people respect those who have high intelligence, the honours and praises of such men are conspicuously abundant, and the atten- tions private and official paid to them are very consider- able. Hence men can force themselves to a thorough acquisition of knowledge. Forgetting fatigue they expatiate in the arts and sciences, seeking for wisdom while relying on perfect virtue, they count not 1000 l [ about 200 miles ] a long journey. Though their family be mn affluent circumstances, such men make up their minds to be like the vagrants, and get their food by begging as they go about With them there is honour in knowing truth (mn having wisdom), and there is no disgrace in being destitute. As to those who lead dissipated idle lives, luxurious in food and extravagant in dress, as such men have no moral excellences and are without accomplishments, shame and disgrace come on them and their ill repute is spread abroad."17 It may be doubted if our universities now produce scholarship coupled with morål excellence, inordinate love of learn- ing with supreme indifference to kāminīkānchana, and above all a sturdy independence of character which will spurn aside every advantage accruing from dancing attendance on big guns and kotowing to them and from the cultivation of the slave mentality.

17 Ibid., VoL I, pp. 160-61.

48 THE GHATIKĀ PROBLEM According to Yuan Chwang, the Jains possessed the majority of the Deva-Temples numbering over 80. Their great institutions in Tondamandalam were at Tirupparut- tikkunram, near Kāñchī, and at Pāțaliputra (Cuddalore), patronised by the Pallavas.18 Therefore higher education in Tondamandalam was largely controlled by the inmates of Buddhist and Jain monasteries till at least the middle of the 7th century A.D. The Ghatika Problem. The Talagunda Pillar Inscrip- tion of Kākutsthavarman describes Mayūrasarman, the founder of the Kadamba dynasty, as a dvijottama who knew his branch of the Veda, who proceeded to the capital of the Pallavas along with his guru Virasarman in order to study प्रवचनं निस्विलं ( the whole of the Veda), and who entered the ghatika directly (ET) as a aa or inquirer ( or yāchaka ). The relevant portion of the record runs as follows :- एवमागते कदंबकुले श्रीमान् बभूव द्विजोत्तम: नामतो मयूरशर्म्मेति भ्रुतशील शौच्यादयलंकृतः । यः प्रयाय पल्लवेन्द्रपुरी गुरुणासमं वीरशर्म्मणा अधिजिगांसु: प्रवचनं निखिलं घटिकां विवेशाशु त्क्कुकः। तत्र पल्लवाश्वसंस्थेन कलहेन तीव्रेण रोषित: कलियुगेस्मिन्नहोबतक्षत्रात् परिपेलवा विप्रता यतः गुरुकुलानि संयगायध्ध्य शाकामधीत्यपि यक्ञतः म्रहसिद्धिर्यदि नृपाधीना किमतः पर दुःखमित्यतः॥1 The first point to note here is that Mayūrasarman entered Kanchī as a vaidika of eminence. He was accompanied by his guru because he had to be introduced

18 Minakshi: op. cit., pp. 227-81. 19 E.I., VIII, p. 32.

THE GHAȚIKĀ PROBLEM 49

to another guru at Kañchī, so that he might complete his study of the Veda, a single branch of which alone had so far been mastered by him. प्रवचनं निखिलं means the whole of the Scripture, not a critical study of the Veda. Mayūraśarman entered the ghatikā, the ghațikā of the Brahmans mentioned in the Vēlūrpālayam grant and other records Ghatika is the diminutive of ghata, a pot, a part of anything, a settlement, etc. Ghatikāsthāna is mentioned in the Arthasastra of Kautilya as a room, according to the commentator Bhattasvāmin20. Mayūra- sarman entered the Brahman quarters of Kanchi for guru- kulavāsa. The word aI is to be taken in the sense of directly (not soon) as will be clear from the sequel. FEe5 is enquirer; the house of the new guru had to be found out; the sense of yachaka is not unsuitable as he was an annārthī as well as a mdyārthī. The Brahman ghatika would be a place for adhyavana privately organised, not a Vidyasthana. Learning of a particular type was avail- able wherever there was a colony of Brahmans, and the Pallavas acted on the Arthasastra dictum21 that Ritviks, Ācharyas, Purohitas and Śrotriyas should be presented with Brahmadeya lands free of .taxes. Such Brahman settlements were homes of Brahmanical ritual and Vedādhyayana. Mayūraśarman's attempt to complete his knowledge of the Veda proved futile because of his ferocious quarrel with a aated. Prof. F. Kielhorn who edited the Talagunda inscription in 1903 before the discovery of the Arthaśastra equated asacies with asvaroha= a horseman, on the analogy

20 Shamasastry, Kautiliyam Arthasastram, p. 110. 21 Ibid., pp. 46 and 19. 0-4

50 THE GHAȚIKĀ PROBLEM of gajastha, rathastha and syandanastha.22 But aśva- samstha means a mounted spy ; samstha meaning spy is mentioned by Kautilya- पचसंस्था: प्रकीर्तिता :- 11 in corneetion with संस्थोत्पत्ति: अश्वदूत: means a riding messenger. Therefore sroareier: is a riding spy. The system of passports described in the Arthaśastra must have prevailed in the Pallava dominions. Whether Mayurasarman was a Pallava subject or not, he would have been bound by the passport regulations. They would have been strictly enforced at Kañchi, particularly after the Dakshinapatha expedition of Samudragupta, the period to which the rise of Mayūrasarman is to be assigned-the third quarter of the 4th century A.D. Therefore he would have been taken to task by a royal spy, and the militant Brahman deplored that he could not attain Brahmasiddhi owmg to the king's regulations and proceeded to take vengeance on him by overthrowing his antapalas or frontier-guards. Therefore the Talagunda inscription does not justify the assumption that Kāñchi was a great centre of Brahmanical higher education, though there is no denying the fact that the Brahman ghatikā of that city must have been conspicuous for its Yajnadhūma and Vedaghosha. The marked progress of Brahmanical learning in Tondamandalam must have synchronised with the advent of thee great Pallavas of Kāñchī.

The Brahmanical Colleges. The Bahur Copper Plates of the 8th regnal year of Nripatungavarman Pallava (849-75) record a grant of three villages to the vidyāsthā- nattār of Vāgūr as a vidyābhoga and Brahmadeya.23 In 22 E.I., VIII, p. 26. 23 E.I., XVIII, DD. 5-15.

THE BRAHMANICAL COLLEGES 51

spite of the difficulties regarding the expression Chāturddisagana or Chaturddaśagana and in spite of the absence of enumeration of the subjects taught, there is no doubt that the ghatika of the earlier period developed into the Vidyasthana of the 9th century A.D. The Chola inscriptions24 at Ennayiram (near Villupuram), Tri- bhuvani (near Pondicherry) and Tirumukkūdal (between Chingleput and Conjeeveram) dated in c. 1025, 1048 and 1067 A D respectively illustrate the development of the educational organisation indicated in the Bahur record. This question has engaged the attention of two reputed scholars.25 Still .a few general observations may be made here. The subjects studied in those three institutions were not only the various branches of the Veda, but also philosophy, Vedanta and Mīmamsa, Grammar, Lower and Higher, and Agamas and Tantras. The students num- bered 340, 260 and 40 in the three colleges and the teachers, 14, 19 and 3 respectively. There were Hostels at Eņņayiram and Tirumukkudal and a Hospital at the latter place. All the three records belong to the 11th century and to Tondamandalam, to which also belongs the Bahūr record of the 9th century. There was a separate institute of Vyākaraņa at Tiruvorriyūr, noticed in an inscription of 1213. In the Cholamandalam, there were a few institutions of a minor character like the medical school at Tiruvaduturai mentioned in a record of 1121. Barring provision for feeding learned Brahmans, for reciting the Veda and reading the Bhāratam, etc., we

24 A.R.E., Madras, 1918, pp. 145-47; 1919, pp. 96-97; E.I., XXI, pp. 220-50. 25 S. K. Aiyangar, Evolution, pp. 288-305; K. A. N. Sastri, The Colas, II, Part I, pp. 464-70.

52 THE BRAHMANICAL COLLEGES

have 14 educational grants belonging to the Choļa period-8 in the Chingleput District (Uttaramērūr, 5; Tirumukkūdal, 1; Tiruvorriyūr, 1; and Kāñchīpuram, 1), 1 at Tribhuvani, 1 at Eņņāyiram; 1 at Ukkal, total 11 for Tondamandalam; 3 in the Tanjore District-Kumbha- koņam, Tiruvāduturai and Tiruvidaikkali, omitting the ghatikā at Vēmbarrūr. Here also the predominance of Tondamandalam is clear Though the colleges at Enņāyiram, Trıbhuvani and Tirumukkūdal illustrate the activities of the Mahasabhas in those places, royal endow- ments were necessary because the financing of higher education was beyond the resources of village assemblies. Besides grants to colleges, we come across Bhattavritti, Vyākhyāvritti, Bhāshyavritti, etc The importance of Vyākaraņa was well appreciated at Nālandā, according to I-tsing. Its progress in Tondamandalam must have been the basis of the etiological legend at Chidambaram connecting Patañjali with the local temple. Grammatical science was perfected in ancient India, which developed a philosophy of Grammar-ride Bhartrihari's Vākyapadīya, the repu- tation of which at Nalanda is vouched for by I-tsing. Now the question is why is the Brahmanical College organisation found concentrated' in Tondamandalam ? The answer is that different streams of Indian culture met there and blended harmoniously. The Buddhist example must have affected the Brahmanical educational organisation in Tondamandalam. The Nalanda University was founded about the middle of the 5th century A.D. and had become famous by the commencement of the 7th century. It taught the Maha- yna, the Hinayana, the Veda and other Brahmanical works, Grammar, Sankhya, Yoga, tantra, medicine and

UNIVERSITY OF NĀLANDĀ 53

astronomy, the medium of instruction being Sanskrit. It earned an international reputation and evoked the patronage of the Sailendras of Insulindia. It was a teaching and residential University devoted to learning and research, possessing an Observatory,26 and a great library housed in three buildings. It inspired other educational efforts in Eastern India-chiefly Vikramaśīlā. Even in the 11th and 12th centuries, Nalanda was great, in spite of the troubles of the Pala Empire, and its end towards the close of the latter century was sudden and violent, and its place was taken in the mediaeval period by Mithila and Navadvipa. Paris and Bologna, " the two great parent Universities " of mediaeval Europe origi- nated in the last quarter of the 12th century A D.27 A Spanish scholar, J. Ribera Y Tarrago, suggests that the mediaeval European University was a conscious imitation of the Arabian system, but his opinion is not widely shared by Western scholars.27 We do not know what ideas of educational organisation the Arabs learnt from India during the 8th and subsequent centuries A.D.

Tondamandalam and Nālanda were in close contact with each other for some centuries. Therefore the theory of Buddhist influence may be advanced. The Brahmanical system adapted many Buddhist ideas, and Śankara was not hostile to healthy Buddhist ideas. Brahmanical Tondamandalam must have got from the Buddhists the idea of concentration in educational effort and of the provision of all conveniences for students. It may be contended that the gurukula system contains 'all the

26 H. D. Sankalia, The University of Ndlanda, 1934, p. 85. 27 Rashdall, op. cit., pp. 17 and 3 n.

54 UNITY OF INDIAN HISTORY

germs of educational expansion, the hostel and the hospital included, but historically Buddhist influence is not improbable.

These studies show that the natural mixture of different streams of culture produces the best results, that extra- provincial contacts are a great stimulus to progress, that Indian civilisation is a harmonious blend of many elements and is one and indivisible despite provincial or local variations, and that Indian History, political and cultural, is not a congeries of provincial histories, but a single unified history.

APPENDIX A

PROVENANCE OF MAHĀSABHĀ INSCRIPTIONS IN THE CHOĻA PERIOD

S. No. Place. No. of

Chingleput Dt. Inscriptions.

1 Ārpākkam 1

2 Kadappērı 3 Kañchīpuram

4 Kāvantaņdalam .. 2

5 Kāyār 1

6 Kūiam .. 3

7 Kūvam .. 1

8 Madhurāntakam .. 5

9 Maņımańgalam 5

10 Māgaral .. 1

11 Nattam .. 2

12 Pādi .. 1

13 Paļaıyašīvaram .. 1

14 Parandūr 1

15 Perumbēr 1

16 Piļļaipākkam .. 1

17 Pullalūr .. 18 Širuvākkam ... 1

19 Śivankūdal .. 1

20 Śömańgalam .. 21 Tennēri 7 22 Tirukkaļukkunram .. 3

23 Tirumukkūdal 4

24 Tirumullaivāyil .. 3

25 Tiruppärhchur .. 1

26 Tiruppālaivanam .. 1 27 Tirupparuttikkunram 2 . 28 Tiruppulivanam 1 .. ..

56 APPENDIX A

S. No. Place. No. of Inscriptions. 29 Tiruvadandai 4

30 Tiruvorriyür 11

31 Uttaramērür 56

32 Vēļachchèri 3

Total 137

Chittoor Dt. 1 Mēlpādi 1141 1

2 Punganūr 1

3 Tiruttaņi 4

4 Tiruvālangādu 1

Total

Nerth Arcot Dt. 1 Brahmadesam 12

2 Kaļambūr 2

3 Kaļattūr 2

4 Kalavai 1

5 Kaļinjūr 1

6 Kāvanūr 4

7 Kīļpākkam 1 .

8 Kōvalūr 1

9 Pallikoņda 2

10 Periyavarikkam 1

11 Takkölam 7

12 Tiruchchānūr 1

13 Tirumālpuram 14 Tiruppārkkadal 15 Tiruvallam 11

APPENDIX A 57

S. No. Place. No. of Inscriptions. 16 Tiruvōttür 1

17 Udayēndiram 1 18. Ukkal 9 19 Vēppanganēri 1

Total 65

Pondicherry. 1 Bāhūr 2

2 Tırukkāñji 1 Tiruvandārkoyil 2

Tribhuvani 16

Total 21

South Arcot Dt. 1234 1 Agaram 5 Bıahmadēśam 3 Chidambaram 4 Kandamangalam 1

5 Elvānāsūr 1

6 Eņņāyiram 7 Erumūr 8 Jambai 9 Kiļiyanūr 7131311611 10 Kīļūr 7

11 Markāņam 12 Peņņādam 3

13 Perangiyür 1 14 Siddhalingamadam 3 15 Tiņdivanam 16 Tiruchchopuram 1 17 Tirukköyilür 6 18 Tirunāmanallūr 1 19 Tirunāraiyūr 1

58 APPENDIX A

S. No. Place. No. of Inscriptions. 20 Tiruvadi 3

21 Tiruvāmāttūr 3

22 Tiruveņņainallūr 3

23 Uḍaiyārgudi 9

24 Vriddhāchalam 1

Total 77

Pudukkoțțai. 1 Tiruvēngaivāšal 1

Tanjore Dt. 1 Āchchāpuram .. 4

2 Ākkūr ..

3 Aļagādriputtūr ..

4 Ālangui 5

5 Ānāṅgūr .. 1

6 Ãttür 7 Ayyampēțțai 8 Kaļappāl .. 9 Kaļļaperumbür .. 2

10 Kaņdiyūr .. 11 Karuttațțāngudi .. 2

12 Kiļaiyūr 13 Konērirājapuram .. 14 Korukkai .. 1

15 Kovilađi . . 16 Kövilür 17 Kuhür .. 1 18 Kumbhakōņam .. 7 19 Kuttālam 1

20 Manganallür 1

21 Mannārgudi .. 1 22 Muniyür .. 1 23 Nidür .. 1 24 Pallavarāyanpēțțal ..

APPENDIX A 59

S. No. Place. No. of Inscriptions- 25 Pandāravādai .. 5

26 Pudutturai 1

27 Puļļamańgai 28 Puñjai (Kidāraň- goņdān) 9 29 Śambanārkoyil 1

30 Śembiyanmahādēvī 9 31 Śendalai 7

32 Senganür 1 33 Shiyali 1

34 Śiyättumańgai 1 35 Śülamańgalam 1

36 Talaichchangādu 6

37 Talaināyar 4 38 . Tillaisthanam 8

39 Tiruchchengāțțāngudi 3

40 Tiruchchirai 41 Tiruchchirrambalam 1

42 Tirukkadaiyür 43 Tirukkaļittatțai 1

44 Tirukkannapuram 1

45 Tirukkānūr 1 46 Tirukködikāval 1 47 Tirukkoļambiyür 5 48 Tirukkurugāvūr .. 1 49 Tırumālkkoțțai .. 1 50° Tirumangalakkudi 1 51 Tirumaņañjēri 1 52 Tirumayānam .. 1 53 Tirumeyñānam .. 54 Tirunāgēsvaram 3 55 Tirunaraiyür 2 56 Tiruppalanam . .' 1 57 Tiruppamburam . .' 1 58 Tiruppugalür . .. 15

.60 APPENDIX A

S. No. Place. No. of Inscriptions. 59 Tiruppūndurutti 1

60 Tiruvāduturai 33 ..

61 Tiruvālangādu 1

62 Tiruvalanjuļi 1

63 Tiruvārūr .. 3

64 Tiruvayāru 1

65 Tıruvengāu .. 1

66 Tiruvidaimarudūr .. 10

67 Tıruviļakkudi .. 9

68 Tiruviļimiļalai .. 1

69 Tıruvišalūr . . 2

70 Tirutturaipūndi .. 1

71 Tukkachchi .. 1 72 Tukkadaiyür .. 1 73 Udaıyāı kōvil .. 4

74 Vēppattūr .. 1

Total .. 234

"Trichinopoly Dt. 1 Ālambākkam .. 8

2 Anbil .. 2

3 Gövindaputtür ..

4 Kāmarasavalli .. 7

5 Kīļappaļuvūr .. 5

6 LAlgudi .. 1

7 Mahādānapuram' .. 1

8 Mēlappaļuvūr .. 9 Nangavaram .. 1

10 Ratnagiri .. 11 Śrīnivāsanallūr .. 2

12 Śrirangam .. 3

13 Tirumalavāđi .. 6

14 Tirumangalam .. 1

15 Tiruppalātturai .. 6

APPENDIX A 61

S. No. Place. No. of Inscriptions.

16 Tiruppangili 1

17 Tiruppattūr 1

18 Tiruverumbūr 11 19 Uraıyür 1 20 Uțțattūr 1 21 Uyyakondăn Tirumalai

Total 65

Madura Dt. 1 Śinnamanūr 1

Tinnevelly Dt. 1 Attāļanallūr 1

2 Āttūr 1

3 Gangaikoņdān 1

4 Maņappadaıvīdu 1

5 Mannāi kovil 2

6 Śēr mādēvī 6

7 Ševilippēri 1

8 Tinnevelly 1

9 Vijayanārāyaņam 2

Total 16

Travancore. 1 Kanyākumāri 1

2 Suchindram 5

3 Darsanakōppu 1

4 Cheramangalam 1

Total

62 APPENDIX A

I. No. Place. No. of Inscriptiol Salem Dt. 121 1 Tiruchchengōđu .. 1

2 Valappuranadu 3 Salem 1

Total .. 4

Mysore. 1 Malūrpațņa .. 9 2 Honganür 1

Total 10

APPENDIX A 63

NUMBER OF PLACES {a) Districts. 1 Chingleput 32 12345678 9 0 Chittoor 4

3 North Arcot 19

4 Pondicherry 4

5 South Arcot 24

6 Pudukkötțai 1

7 Tanjore 74

8 Trichinopoly 21

9 Madura 1

10 Tinnevelly 9

11 Travancore 4

12 Salem 3

13 Mysore 2

Total 198

NUMBER OF PLACES {b) Mandalam. 1 Tondamandalam 83 Choļamaņdalam 96 3 Pāņdyamaņdalam 14 4 Kongu-Kannadam 5

Total 198

APPENDIX B

LIST OF PLACES HAVING FOUR OR MORE INSCRIPTIONS EACH IN TONDAMANDALAM AND CHOĻAMAŅDALAM

I Period of Rājakēsarı and Parakēsari inscriptions of unidentified kıngs. II Period of Parāntaka I, A.D 907-53. III Interval between Parāntaka I and Rājarāja I, 953-85. IV Period of Rājarāja I, 985-1014. V Rājēndra I, 1012-44. VI Interval between Rajendra I and Kulottunga I, 1018-70. VII Period of Kulottunga I, 1070-1120. VIII Interval between Kulottunga I and Rājarāja III, 1120-1216 IX Period of Rājarāja III and Rājēndra III, 1216-79. X Total.

Chingleput Dt. I II III IV v VI VII VIII IX 1 Kanchīpuram 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 = 7

2 Madhurāntakam 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 = 5

3 Maņimangalam 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 = 5

4 Tennēri 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 = 7 5 Tirumukkūdal 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 = 4

6 Tiruvadanadai 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 = 4

7 Tiruvorriyur 1 0 0 0 1 7 1 1 0 = 11

8 Uttaramērūr 6 7 27 5 8 0 1 1 1 = 56

Chittoor Dt. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 9 Tiruttaņi 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 4

North Arcot Dt. I II IIÌ IV V VI VII VIII IX X 10 Brahmadēšam 1 3 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 = 12 11 Kāvanür . 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 = . 4

APPENDIX B 65

12 Takkölam 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 1= 7 13 Tiruppārkkađal 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0= 4 14 Tiruvallam 0 0 0 7 0 3 0 1 0 = 11 15 Ukkal 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 = 9

Pondicherry I II III IV v VI VII VIII IX x 16 Tribhuvani 0 0 0 0 3 5 7 1 0 = 16

South Arcot Dt. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 17 Agaram 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0= 5 18 Chidambaram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 19 Eņņāyiram 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 = 6 20 Erumūr 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 = 7 21 Kiļiyanūr 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 = 6

Tanjore Dt. I II IV V· VI VII VIII IX X 22 Kīļür 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 = 7 23 Tirukkoyilür 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 = 6 24 Udaiyārgudi 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 9 25 Achchapuram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 26 Ālanguḍi 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 5 27 Kiļaiyür 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 = 4 28 Kumbhakōņam 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 29 Paņdāravāai 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 = 6 30 Puļļamangai 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 4 31 Puñjai 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 3 0 = 9 32 Šembiyan- mahādēvī 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 1 = 9 33 Śendalai 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 = 7 34 Talaichchangadu 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 D 4 = 6 35 Talaināyar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 = 4 36 Tillaisthanam 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 8 37 Tirukkadaiyür 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 = 7 38 Tirukkoļambiyür 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 = 5 39 Tirumeyaānam 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 = 4 40 Tiruppugalur 0 0 1 1 2 3 6 0 = 15 0-5

66 APPENDIX B

41 Tiruvāđuturai 3 6 0 5 5 0 5 9 0= 33 42 Tiruvidai- marudür 4 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 = 10 43 Tiruviļakkudi 3 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 = 9

44 Udaiyārkövil 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 = 4

Trichinopoly Dt. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 45 Ālambākkam 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 = 8 46 Kāmarasavalli 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 = 7

47 Kilappaluvür 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 = 5 · 48 Tirumalavāți 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 6 49 Tiruppalātturai 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 6 50 Tiruverumbür 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 11

Total 78 36 56 54 45 43 40 50 16 = 418

APPENDIX C

DISTRIBUTION OF MAHĀSABHA RECORDS DURING THE ABOVEMENTIONED NINE PERIODS OF CHOĻA HISTORY

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X l Chingleput Dt. 13 11 34 20 16 13 16 8 6 = 137

2 Chittoor Dt. 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 = 7

3 North Arcot Dt. 9 13 13 13 3 10 1 2 1= 65

4 Pondicherry 0 0 1 3 3 5 8 1 0 = 21

5 South Arcot Dt. 10 3 7 13 9 5 10 15 5 = 77

6 Pudukkōțțai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 = 1

7 Tanjore Dt. 39 16 15 23 22 16 22 56 25 = 234 8 Trichinopoly Dt. 27 5 1 5 8 5 7 5 2 = 65

9 Madura Dt. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 = 1 10 Tinnevelly Dt. 0 0 0 5 3 5 3 0 0 = 16 11 Travancore 1 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 = 8 12 Salem 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 4 13 Mysore 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 = 10

Total 103 50 71 91 71 68 89 40 = 646

NUMBER OF RECORDS (a) Tondamandalam 307 .. (b) Choļamandalam 300 (c) Pandyamandalam .. 25 (d) Kongu-Kannadam 14 .. ..

Total .. 646

APPENDIX D

PROVENANCE OF IMPORTANT EDUCATIONAL RECORDS OF THE CHOĻA PERIOD

S. No. Place. No. of Chingleput Dt. Inacriptions.

1 KānchIpuram 11 . .. . .. 2 Tirumukkūdal . .. Tiruvorriyür .. .. 1 Uttaramērür .. 5

North Arcot Dt. 5 Ukkal .. 1

Pondicherry. 6 Tribhuvani .. 1

.South Arcot Dt.

. 7 Enņāyiram .. ..

Tanjore Dt. 8 Kumbhaköņam 1

9 Tiruvāduturai .. 1 1/ Tirnvidaikkali .. 1

Total 14

INDEX Aihole Inscription, 22. Chāritravardhana, 9. Aitareya Brāhmana, 7. Choļa Kingdom, extent of, 3-4, Allahabad Inscription, 13, 18. 6-7. Amarakośa, 10. Amarāvatī, 23. Dantivarman, 27, 34.

Āndhras, 4, 7, 12, 24. Devarāshțra, 16.

Aravaņa Adigaļ, 24. Devarāya I, 19. Devasomā, 45. Arthaśastra, 8, 11-12, 18, 35-37, Dhanadasa, 45. 49-50. Āryadeva, 24. Dharmapāla, 24, 46.

Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa, 10-11. digvrjaya, 21.

Asoka, extent of his empire, 3-5. Dingnāga, 24, 46.

Aśokavarman, 9, 46. Dramidāchārya, 11.

aśvamedha, 18, 21. Durvinīta, 23.

aśvasamstha, 49-50. Eņņāyiram, college at, 51. Augustus, 18. Erandapalla, 15. Avamukta, 16. Ferishta, 19.

Bādāmi, 22. Gangas, Western, 23, 25. Bāhūr, college at, 50-51. Ghațikā Problem, 48-50. Barnett, 17. Govinda III, 40. Bandarkar, 7. grāmakaņțhakas, 41, 43. Bhartrihari, 52. gurukula, 53-54. . Bhäshyavritti, 52. Bhațțasvāmin, 49. Harisena, 14. Harivarma 2233MOR/ Bhatțavritti, 52. Bindusāra, 10-11. Hathigupoha rhecription,

Bologna, university of, 53. Hemacy ndre, 11.

Brahmanical Colleges, 50-52. Herde

Buddha, 2. Hitler 10 Hobbe Buddhavarman, 46. NO (V.R NARL/ DPRL

Buddhism, spread of, 2-3, 23-26. Hostel, Hospit Acc. No . Burke, 20. Hoysalas,

INDEX

Ikshvākus, 24. Mahāsabhā, inscriptions relat- Indian History, unity of, 54. ing to, 27-32; origins of, 34-40; I-tsing, 52. golden age of, 40-41; decline:

Jains, 9, 48. of, 41-43.

nhads, 19-20. Mallinātha, 9.

Jolly, 12. Maņımēkhalar, 12, 23. Mānūr Mahāsabhā, 35. Kadambas, 22-23. Māran Śadayan, 35. Kāñchī, 2, 6, 12, 23; university Maravarman Sundara, 42. of, 44-46; ghațikā at, 48-50. Mattarlāsaprahasana, 45. Kannada, 25. Mayūraśarman, 22, 25, 48-50. Kaņņanūr, 42. Megasthenes, 36-37. Karikāla, 3, 7, 12. Mithilā, 53.

Kaśākkudi Plates, 10. Nāgārjuna, 23 Kauțilya, 11, 36-37, 49-50. Nāgārjunikoņda, 23. Kerla, 15. Nāgasena, 45. Khāravela, 10, 12. Nālandā, university of, 52-53 .. Kirtivarman I, 22. Nandas, 22. Kongu, 5. Narasimha II, 42-43. Ko-Peruñjinga, 42. Navadvīpa, 53. Kosala, 14. Nripatungavarman, 50. Koțțūra, 15. Krishņa III, 40. Pālakka, 16.

Kudavōlar, 33, 38. * Pāli Canon, 2.

Kulottunga I, 41; III, 42. Pallava Genealogy, 9-10.

Kurumbas, 8-9. Panchayat, 36, 38.

Kusthalapura, 16-17. Pan Kou, 7, 12. Parāntaka I, 34, 40, 43.

Locke, 20. Paris, university of, 53.

Lot System, Athenian, 33-34; Pāțaliputra, administration of,

see Kudavölai. 36-38; (Cuddalore), 48. Patañjali, 6, 12, 52. Mādhava III, 23. Periplus, 6-7, 12-13. madhyamasi, 36. Pishțapura, 15. madyastha, 32, 36. Ptolemy, 7, 8. Mahdbharata, 7-8. Pulakeśin I, 22-28; II, 22-28. Mahākāntāra, 15. Pulindas, 7-9. Mahārāshțra, 25. Pundras, 8.

INDEX

Pushyamitra, 6. Tirupparuttikkunram, 48. Rājāditya, 40. Tiruvāduturai, medical school Rājarāja I, 40-41; III, 42. at, 51. Rājavihāra, 45-46. Tiruvorriyūr, institute at, 51. Rājēndra I, 41. Tondamandalam, importance of Ramanatha, 42. the history of, 1-2; under Rāmāyana, 8. Asoka and after, 12; Bud- Rock Edicts, 4, 11. dhism in, 23-26; primacy of,

Śabara, 8. 29; origin of Mahasabha in,

Sabha, Vedic, 36. 35; Rāshțrakūța occupation

Sahadeva, 8. of, 40; higher education in, Śailendras, 53. 43-52.

Samudragupta, Dakshiņapatha University, definition of, 44-45. expedition of, 13-22. Uttaramērür Charter, 32-34. Śańkara, 53. Satiyaputra, identification of, Vākāțakas, 25.

4-5. Varaguņa II, 35.

Sītā, 8. Variyam, 37-38.

Smith, 3, 4. Vāyalūr, Inscription, 9-10.

Someśvara, 42. Vēlūrpāļayam Plates, 10.

studrum generale, 44-46. Vengi, 16, 24.

Sugrīva, 8. Vikramaśiiā, 53.

Svāmidatta, 14. Viraśarman, 48. Vishņugopa, 14, 16. Takkölam, battle of, 40. Vishņusahasranāma, 10. Tāļagunda Inscription, 48-50. Vishņuvardhana, 41. Taļakād, 23. Tamil League, 10-12. Višvāmitra, 7.

Tāranātha, 10. Vykhyāvritti, 52.

Wars, causes of; 19-21. . Tarn, 10. Tarrago, 53. Wells, 8.

Telugu-Chōdas, 42. Yuan Chwang, 2, 12, 15, 24-25, - Tirumukkūdal, college at, 51. 45-48.

11868