|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
XIV.- Inscriptions of Parakesarivarman Uttama-Chola No. 142 Manikanthesvara temples at Tirumullaivayil No. 123 to 125 Madhuvanesvara, Mahalingasvamin, Varaha-Perumal temples No. 126 to 127 Chandrasekhara & Ghritasthanesvara temples No. 128 Madras Museum plates of Uttama-Chola No. 129 to 133 Nagesvarasvamin, Umambesvara, Adimulesvara temples No. 134 to 137 Virattanesvara, Ujjivanathasvamin, Nagesvarasvamin temples No. 138 to 141 Mahalingasvamin, Vatatirthanatha, Nedungalanatha temples No. 143 to 147 Adhipurisvara, Apatsahayesvara, Umamahesvara temples No. 148 to 150 Sivayoganathasvamin, Siddhanathasvamin temples No. 151 Umamahesvarasvamin temple at Konerirajapuram No. 151-A On the east and north walls of the same shrine No.
142.- ON THE NORTH WALL OF THE CENTRAL SHRINE IN THE MANIKANTHESVARA
TEMPLE AT TIRUMALPURAM[1] This
inscription is dated in the 14th year and the 216th
day[2]
of Ko-non-inmaikondan[3]
while he was staying in his golden palace (pon-maligai) at
Kachchippedu. In his
introduction to South-Indian Inscriptions, Volume II, Part V,
the late Mr. Venkayya surmised that pon-maligai[4]
in the word pon-maligai-tunjinadeva must dnote the
dancing hall of the god Nataraja at Chidambaram which is said to
have been covered with gold both by Parantaka I. and by an early
Pallava sovereign[5].
The reference in this inscription to the golden palace at
Kachchippedu seems, however, to indicate that the term pon-maligai
should refer to the palace and not to the golden hall of the
Chidambaram temple. It
is more appropriate that the death of Sundara-Chola called
Ponmaligai-tunjinadeva should have happened in a palace instead of a
temple.
The
record is of much historical interest.
It refers first to a grant of revenue in paddy and in gold,
made in the 21st and 22nd years of a Chola
king entitled Tonddaimanarrur-tunjinadeva, to the temple at
Tirumalperu. The grant,
was not entered in the revenue registers, evidently by a mistake,
and was therefore rectified in the 4th year of
Parakesarivarman, âwho took Madirai and Ilam.â
A fresh grant was also made to the temple in the 36th
year of this same king. This
latter grant being misappropriated by the assembly of Puduppakkam
which was entrusted with the management of the gift, a complaint was
lodged before the king, here referred to as Ko-non-inmai-kondan, in
the 14th year of his reign.
The offending members were fined for the mistake committed
and orders were issued that the defaulting members of the assembly
should in future conduct the trust honestly. Rai
Bahadur V. Venkayya has fully discussed the contents of this
inscription and their historical bearing in the Madras
Epigraphical Report for 1907, p.71 f.
He points out that Tondaimanarrur-tunjinadeva, who preceded
Parakesarivarman the conqueror of Madirai and Ilam, could be no
other than the laterâs father Aditya I., and that the title which
means âwho died at Tondaimanarrurâ must indicate that Aditya I,
who was the actual conqueror of Tondai and the hero who deprived the
Ganga Pallavas of the last vestiges of their authority, died in the
Tondai country in the village Tondaimanarrur (i.e., the
modern Tondamanad near Kalahasti).
It is not clear who king Ko-non-inmai-kondan was in whose 14th
year the present record was written.
In identifying him it has to be observed that he rectified a
mistake which was committed in the 36th year of Parantaka
I. and which was brought to his notice in his 14th year.
Mr. Venkayya was inclined to identify Ko-non-inmai-kondan
with AdityaKarikala (II) whose latest date known from inscriptions,
however, is his 5th year.
Ko-non-inmai-kondan may have been Rajakesarivarman
Gandaraditya, the immediate successor of Parantaka I.
But the appearance of the same names among the signatories in
this record as well as in another document distinctly of the time of
Uttama-Chola, makes it almost certain that the Ko-non-inmai-kondan
of the Tirumalpuram inscription is not other than king Uttama-Chola. The
publicity given to the order by communicating it to the headmen of
all Brahmadeya villages, the residents of the Devadana, Pallichchanda,
Kanimurruttu and Vettapperru
villages in Manaiyil-nadu, the long list of officers that
held various public offices such as Anatti, Vaykkelvi,
Olai-nayagam, Puravuvari, Varippottagam, Kanakku, Variyilidu,
Pattolai and Mugavetti who executed the order and witnessed the
transaction, and the perspicuity with which thefacts themselves are
detailed in the record, are worthy of note. Of
the villages mentioned Sirriyarrur and Puduppakkam may be identified
with Sittattur and Puduppakkam in the Walajapet taluk of the North
Arcot district. The
terms puravu and iravu applied to the income in paddy
have not been clearly understood. (Line
1.) Hail ! Prosperity ! (This is the order of)
Ko-non-inmai-kondan[6] to the residents (nattar)
of Manaiyil-nadu in Manaiyil-kottam, to the headmen (kilavar)
of Brahmadeya (villages), to the residents of the Devadana,
Pallichchanda, Kanimurruttu and Vettapperru villages and
to the residents of towns :- (L.
8.) On the 216th day of the 14th year
(of our reign) we being on the first floor of the
golden hall (pon-maligai) within our mansion at Kachchippedu,
the officer Sola-Muvendavelan informed us thus : - (L.
12.) âSirriyarrur in Manaiyil-nadu (a subdivision) of
Manaiyilkottam with (its income of) thre thousand kadi
of puravu five hundred and sixty-one kadi of iravu
and twenty-six and a half kalanju and (one) manjadi
of gold, excluding the kani of Sangappadikilan, was assigned
as a tax-free devadana to (the temple of) Mahadeva (Siva)
at Tirumalperu in the twenty-first year of (the reign of)
the king (udaiyar) who died a
t Tondaimanarrur, and was made over to (the members) of the
assembly of Puduppakkam which was a brahmadeya in
Purisai-nadu of this kottam, as a devadana and brahmadeya
(with the stipulation) that they should pay the said puravu,
iravu and gold to the god. (L.
23.) â(This village) which was handed over in the 22nd
(year of the same reign) after its hamlets had been
circumambulated and the (necessary) documents executed, was
not, (however), entered in the accounts (vari).
It was registered (subsequently) in the accounts (vari)
as a devadana and a brahmadeya in the fourth year (of the reign of) king
Parakesarivarman, âwho took Madirai (Madura) and Ilam
(Ceylon)â, and (accordingly) the members of the assembly of
Puduppakkam were themselves paying to the god, the (said) puravu
iravu and gold.â (L.
28.) âIn the 36th year of (the reign of) king
Parakesarivarman, âwho took Madiri (Madurai) and Ilam
(Ceylon)â the three thousand kadi of puravu accruing
as produce from the estate (kani) of Sangappadikilan in this (village
of) Sirriyarrur, was (also) entered in the accounts as a
tax-free devadana (in favour of) the same (temple
of) Mahadeva at Tirumalperu.â (L.
32.) â(Now), the managers of the temple (devakanmigal),
the men in charge of (its) central shrine (unnaligaiy-udaiyar)
and all the Mahesvaras come and complain that the members of
the assembly of Puduppakkam have been misappropriating and enjoying
this kani of Sangappadikilan bestowed (on the temple)
in the above said manner, without paying the taxes to the god.â
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||