Gokul raised issues related to AK's murder: Whether Uthama involved - nexus between Ravidasan & co., - Pandian Abattudavigal etc.
Ravidasan is Chera .. how come Pandiyan Abattudavigal? In a murder involving Chola, Pandya will be prime suspect and vice-versa.. If one was looking for a Pandiya he will never find the true one, because Chera MERCINARY was Employed. In 1950, Neelakanta Sastry and Kalki would have DEFINITELY discussed this in detail... But the findings before Neelakanta Sastry were not adequate.. For instance, Esalam Copper Plates (Rajendra period) describe of Veerapandiya's Murder.. they were found in 1986-87 only... Hence Kalki created a bad Madurantaga and a Good Uthama! So intelligent of him...
But why should he line up Pazhuvur Kings with the assasins?
Pavithra has extensively quoted Sastry : Whether Uthama was Uthama or otherwise?
Sridhar's mail collection summerises : Kalki also had the same question. Thus he introduced Senthan Amudhan - who turned to be Uthama.. Other points : Every Chola King who conquered Madurai - Pandya Capital - has called himself Madurandagan .. Uthama was one such..
Madurantaga Kandradithan was son of Uthama :: Inscriptions pertaining to him are found at Thiruvallam -(Near Ranipet BHEL) where Kundavai & Vandiyathevan ruled.. After 996 no inscription mentions him... He was Controller & Auditor General of Religeous Endowments under RR .. In Thiruvallam temple, a stone statue of a bearded person is found in sitting posture with both his hands nailed .. that of a fellow who mishandled temple donated lands and funds .. ! MdKttn found and punished such fellows.... In Suseendram a revolt took place against the Monarchy in RR's Rule which was suppressed with an Iron hand!
RR was found to be god-fearing and devoted only to Godly activities and out of politics in Uthama's days. Like-wise MdKttn also looked after only temple affairs - still he did not survive beyond the 11th Ruling year of RR .. May be RR did not want Rajendra to have problems.. Panchavanmadevi would have helped .. hence Pallippadai..?!
Gokul is talking of two inscriptions of Sembian Madevi : One in Thiruvarur : 15th year of Uthama and in 17th year of Uthama at Thiruvisalur .. (Available in the footnotes of Sethuraman) When I discussed this with Dr KKvn last year he wanted more clarity. These inscriptions talk of Siver vessels gifted by SMadevi to the temples for Uthama.. PLEASE NOTE that 17th Year of UTHAMA is the same as 2nd YEAR OF RAJARAJA... Still S.Madevi desired to denote the year after her son's ascendency than RR's.. He already started sharing power with Uthama... Silver Vessel was normally denoted in memory of some one ..
Dear Pavithra please note that this is one of the reasons for lining up Sembian Madevi with Uthama...in BK's Udayar ..
I think Lavanya's Venkiteswaran's mail (June 2002) is pretty exhaustive ... Thanks again to Dr. Sridhar ... Fondly, SB
Request you yourself post in Agasthiam. I find it difficult to go through Agasthiam mails - with E Kalappai etc.
I am expecting concrete criticism which can stand scrutiny. We will formulate some impeccable theory with the help of Kudavoil, KKvn and Dr.Nagaswamy, if possible - on the lines of our mails - for 972 to 985 AD.
However, I am planning to collect the 2nd & 3rd Regnl Yrs of RR (986- 987) inscriptions, assemble and then see a pattern.
For instance, Sembian Madevi gifted a Perpetual lamp on the 2nd Renl Yr of Uthama at Udayarkudi. STRICTLY SPEAKING THIS STATEMENT ITSELF IS WRONG. I SHOULD RE-WORD IT AS : The gift of a Perpetual lamp by Sembiyan madevi was recorded in the 2nd Regnl Yr of Uthama in Udayarkudi.
What is the difference?
NO INSCRIPTION IS RECORDED IN THE FIRST REGNL YR OF ANY KING BE IT CHOLAS, PANDYAS OR PALLAVFAS. IT IS A CUSTOM. So, when we read the inscription which pertains to a gift, we assume, it is made in that year. IT NEED NOT BE. Even though those who follow these things are aware, some of our members may not be. Hence the clarification.
The above said gift was in memory of ADITHA KARIKALA's MURDER - a sad occasion & she should have made it as soon as the ceremonies are over. Some one may ask how do you know. There are so many inscriptions of similar gifts by his personal body guards and other regiments. These are recorded without any decor. But, when Uthama recorded his mother's gift after a year, he mentions : "Mazhavarayan magalar udayapirattiar Semibyan madeviar ". Now compare 570 of 1906 Tiruvarur inscription in my earlier mail for the gift made by SMadevi. It is just plain without any decor. The tone of the inscription is more leaning towards the inventory (of the items gifted) than the occasion "Uthamadevarkkaga".
Same way, the recordings of RR, though show in the 2nd Rgnl Year, there are possibility that the occasions occured earlier, as soon as he ascended to the throne. That is why a detailed study of 2nd and 3rd Regnl Yr of RR would bring more to light - I stongly believe.