Adiyen read many posts in this group before posting. I respect the high intellectual calibre of all members of this group - therefore, adiyen has no wish to insult/mock/ruffle feathers. I sincerely apologise to all members who felt adiyen has offended them.
My intention is to discuss history from a different perspective. Here are adiyen's clarifications:
1. My central thesis is that the Pallava era (300 (?) - 900 AD) has been overlooked for its contribution to the later growth in Tamil language, culture and administration. The Pallavas gave Tamil Nadu a stable government after the confusion of the post-Sangam kalpirar time. Even the kings of the sangam era were only smaller chieftains - it was the Pallavas who attempted at a wider and more stable administration of Tamizhagam.
2. Why is this important? - it gave stability to the lives of the ordinary people and allowed culture and arts to flourish. Most of the Nayanmars lived in the Pallava age, majority of Savite hymns (all of moovar thevaram) and Diya Prabandam was written in Pallava period. Pallava administration made this possible.
3. The origin of Pallavas is certainly in dispute. But it is by no means certain that they were NOT tamils. S. Krishnasamy Iyengar, Ira. Sathyanathayyar and Ira. Ragavayangar all strive to show that they were thondai mandala Tamils who at first were subject to Sadavahanas and later assumed control. There is also a theory that the pallavas descended from Eezham (manipallavam).
4. Pallavas also created a rich cosmopolitan Tamil Nadu by allowing Buddhists, Jains and Sanskrit scholars to have schools in their territory (Bharavi, Thandi). This attracted such foreign embassies like the Chinese Fang Hsuan. Please note: the Chinese Emperors of that time felt they were ruling the Middle Kingdom (most civilised empire) and knew everything. It was interesting how Fang Hsuan praises Tamil Nadu - this is to all our pride.
4. Adiyen has never insulted/mocked individual Chola kings - my posts are proof of this. My point is that the Vijayalaya paramparai had no clear link with the early Cholas and that they grabbed power without a clear policy objective. This is shown in the bloodiness of early Medieval Chola history.
5. They also conquered other countries without clear strategic objectives, abandoning them after a while. Even in these conquests they were following the footsteps of the earlier Pallava trade and conquest routes. The oldest Hindu and Buddhist temples in Java Prambanan (please see pictures in web!) and Borobudur were built in 9th century in Pallava period.
6. Lastly, later Cholas did not encourage cosmopolitanism. They were parochial. We do not hear of a fermenting of cultural and scholarly life as in Pallava Kanchi. E.g. Mahendra varman was an artist and a musician. We would be hard put to find similar accomplishments among later Cholas. They stuck to sponsoring Saivism. This is not wrong - but it cramped the intellectual climate of Tamil Nadu.
This 'adiyen' will attempt to address some points of the "adiyen 1" {hence forth I will be called Adiyen 2 onlee}
Charge of being parochial: For Heaven sake, the year was 900AD-1000AD ~. Adiyen 1 is just trying to foist contemporary values on to the past. Well as a principle I, ie. Adiyen 2, personally favors other flavors of theism over monotheism; European history does not show that being monotheistic imposes intellectual limitations on the really intellectual people.
Following earlier footsteps: Is it wrong to follow successful footsteps? If they did not, "Adiyen n" would probably accuse them of being too arrogant to not follow earlier successes.
Bloodlines: What has bloodlines got to do with anything? As they say past performance is no guarantee for future results. Throughout history successful and/or powerful individuals from different clans/tribes/ithiyadi had managed to setup dynasties based on their hard work. RC or RR's greatness (or lack of greatness as perceived by 'Adiyen 1') is based on their effort. Needless to stay their forefathers did some ground work.
> 2. Why is this important? - it gave stability to the lives of the ordinary people and allowed culture and arts to flourish. Most of the Nayanmars lived in the Pallava age, majority of Savite hymns (all of moovar thevaram) and Diya Prabandam was written in Pallava period. Pallava administration made this possible.
Hi
there are records of religious prosecution during pallava age. thirunavukarasar underwent the same royal persecution as ramanuja in the hands of the later cholas
true devaram is of the same age as the pallavas. but i think most of it was written inspite of them with appar on the run. of course the pandyas too were antagonistic to saivism and appar warns sambandar not to go to madurai.
> > 4. Pallavas also created a rich cosmopolitan Tamil Nadu by allowing Buddhists, Jains and Sanskrit scholars to have schools in their territory (Bharavi, Thandi).
raja raja's daughter herself converted to buddhism the contribution of cholas to the buddhist monasteries is well recorded.
> > 4. My point is that the Vijayalaya paramparai had no clear link with the early Cholas and that they grabbed power without a clear policy objective. This is shown in the bloodiness of early Medieval Chola history.
isnt it the job of every great king to outgrow his shoes. expansion of territory has never had a policy objective kalki struggles with this point while wring in an environment clamouring for freedom from an oppressor. he has mamallar in parthiban kanavu expalining how larger kingdoms have a better chance of survival. sure there isnt a clear link but we see so many other kings doing similar claims. babar claims a lineage from ghengiz khan and timur.most races till independence even claimed to have descended from the sun or moon
i sure appreciate your strong view points on this subject which doesnt come without an objective and indepth study