Pāṇḍikkōvai and  the  Pāṇḍya king

Arikesari  Māravarman  

R. NAGASWAMY

(This is a revised version of the article pulished by in Professor K.AṆilakanta sastri’s 80^th birth day Felicitation Volume)

            A few Tamil stanzas were first  noticed in the commentary of a Tamil work  Iṛaiyanār Ahapporuū, as referring to a Pāṇḍya King. They were recognised  as belonging to a Tamil literary work called Pāṇḍkkōvai  but later about three hundred and fifty verses were collected from various commentaries that now from the work  “Pāṇḍkkōvai” . The name, Pāṇḍkkōvai, was restored from a work, Kaḷaviyar Kārigai, edited by S. Vaiyapuri Pillai. It is likely that the original work carried more verses.

            The Pāṇḍkkōvai deals with the exploits of a Pāṇḍya ruler, Some of the mythical exploits of the Pāṇḍya, mentioned in their copper plate charters such as the breaking of a ring on the crown of Indra, the chasing away of the ocean, the learning of Tamil under Saint Agastya etc., are repeated in this work. These ēmythical exploits apart, the work presents a unitary theme of praising a Pāṇḍya king's valour and his various victories. It gives both the Tamil and Sanskrit titles assumed by Arikēsari.

            K.V. Subramaniya Ayyar, with characteristic insight, first suggested (1. Historical sketches of Ancient Deccan Vol. I pp. 123-5) the identity of Arikēsari Asamasaman, Māravarman of the copper plate charters with the hero of the commentary, the Pāṇḍikkovai on Iṛaiyanār Ahapporuḷ. But Professor K. A. Nilakanta Sastri states  that there seems to be no ground for accepting the identification of this king (Arikēsari of the Velvikkuḍi grant) with the hero celebrated in the commentary to the Iṛaiyanār Ahapporuḷ. (2. K. A. N. Sastri – Pāṇḍyan kingdom, page 54) An attempt is made in this paper to re-examine the identity of this king.

            Arikēsari Parānkuśa Māravarman was mainly responsible for the expansion of the first Pāṇḍya empire and arresting the southward expansion of the Pallavas. The copper plate charters from Vēlvikkuḍi and Sinnamanūr are the main epigraphical sources for his exploits.

            According to the Vēlvikkuḍi grant, Arikēśari, who also had the titles Asamasaman and Māravarman, was the son of Sēndan. He won battles at Pāḻi, Sennilam and Puliyūr and subdued the Paravas and the chief of Kuṛunāḍu. A veiled reference is found to a conquest across the sea (Ceylon). His notable victory was against Vilvēi at a place called Nelvēli. Arikēsari performed the Hiraṇyagarbha sacrifice and the Tulābhāra ceremony. (3. Vēlvikkudi grant Lines 12 to 16)

            The smaller Sinnamanūr plates give him the same names as Arikēsari, Asamasaman and Māravarman but does not list his conquest. They say that he prformed the Tulābhāra and the Gosahasra ceremonies by gifting a number of ”godānas" to commemorate its commencement. (1. Lines 14-23) This charter also states that he performed the Hiraṇyagarbha, sacrifice twice. The larger Sinnamanūr plates call him Arikēsari and Parānkuśa. Two of his victories, a conquest over Villava at Nelveli and a battle against a Pallava at Sankaramangai, are recorded in the charter. According to the Vēlvikkuḍi grant mentioned earlier, Arikēśari defeated Vilvēli at Nelvēli. This grant makes it clear that Vilvēli was none other than Villavan, the Chera, who was defeated at Nelveli. (2. Lines 104-106)  ēāṛōīṇḍ

            Thus he is called Nedumāran, Puliyan, Minavan, Neriyan, Vānavan, Māran etc., in Tamil and Arikēsari, Parānkuśa, Vicāri, Atisaya, Ranodaya and Raṇāntaka in Sanskrit. Apart from his fish standard, he is said to have possessed a flag with the figure of thunder drawn on it (v. 349). He is also said to have marked on the Meru mountain his "fish and tiger on bow" crest.

            No less than 34 victories are attributed to this king. Each stanza mentions one or other battlefield where he distinguished himself. From this work it is seen that his first fight (Kannivāhai) was at Āṛṛukkuḍi (v. 282), where he defeated the Chera. It is also seen that nearly 15 battles were with the Cheras. In the northern front, Uraiyūr and Vallam of the Chola were captured. Arikēsśri led a successful expedition to Ceylon. The Venāḍu ruler was overthrown. At a place called Venmāttu he is said to have defeated two kings. Probably these two rulers were the Chera and the Venādu ruler who aided him. A part of Kongu and northern Kolli were also brought under his rule.

            Among the places where he won victories over the Cheras were Pūlantai, Viliñjam, Kaḍaiyal, Koṭṭtāru, Aṛṛukkuḍi, Naraiyāṛu, Kaḷantai, Vañji, Vāṭṭāṛu, Iruñjiṛai. He is said to have won a battle at Sangamangai, but the enemy is not mentioned. Besides these, the following battle where he was victorious needs special mention; Pāḻi, Sennilam, Nelvēli and Pulippai, Conquests of Pāḻi, Sennilam and Nelvēli are attributed to Arikēsari Parānkuśa in the Vēlvikkuḍi grant. Pulippai is probably identical with the Puliyūr mentioned in the Vēlvikkuḍi grant, where Arikēśari gained a victory. Sangamangai is probably identical with the Saṅkaramaṅgai of the larger Sinnamanūr plates, where Arikēsari defeated a Pallava.

            Of  the battlefields mentioned in Pāṇḍkkōvai, five are repeated for Arikēsari in epigraphical records. The Pāṇḍkkōvai specially mentions that a number of battles he won were against the Cheras. The Vēlvikkudi grant states that Arikēsari defeated the Chera in a number battles. Since Viliñjam is mentioned in Pāṇḍkkōvai as one of the battles won by the hero, Prof. Sastri holds that the identification is impossible to sustain, for according to him, Viliñjam is heard in epigraphy only late in the eighth century A.D. Vilinjam was conquered, (by a number of kings,) not only in the eighth century A.D. but also later which proves its importance as a strategic centre. The Pāṇḍkkōvai (v. 32) refers to it as a seaport. There is nothing to prove that Vilinjam rose to prominence only in the eighth century. It should have been a place of considerable importance much earlier. Nor does the view of the learned Professor that "it is quite possible that a rhetorical work like this took for its hero a saintly king of legendary fame and attributed to him all the achievements of the Pāṇḍyan line of kings that the author could think of  in his day" (pp. 55 fn.) seem to us unacceptable. None of the important exploits attributed in the copper plates either to the predecessors or successors of Arikēsari Parānkuśa are mentioned in the 350 verses of Pāṇḍkkōvai.

            K. V. Subramaniya Ayyar has attributed the titles Arikēsari and Parānkusa to two kings, to Arikēsari Asamasaman of the Vēlvikkuḍi grant and his grandson, Māravarman, familiarly known as Tērmāran. Other writers, (but not Prof. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri) including the editors of the recent book "Thirty Pāṇḍya Copper plates" have followed his suggestion. The copper plates give the titles Arikēsari and Parānkuśa only to Māravarman, son of Sēndan and to none else. Thus there is only one Arikēsari Parānkuśa Māravarman, known to the epigraphs. It is, therefore, clear that the Pāṇḍkkōvai has as its hero the very same Arikēsari Parānkuśa of the copper plates.

            This identification raises some interesting problems. From the Dalavāy puram plates of Parāntaka Viranārāyaṇa, scholars are now inclined to believe that the Śaivite saint, Mānikkavācaka, was a contemporary of Varaguṇa II. The Tirukkovaiyār of the Saivite saint Māṇikkavācakar is the best kōvai work in Tamil, but the Pāṇḍkkōvai would be the earliest kōvai so far known.