I remember we had a mail chain long back on difference b/w western invaders and our own kings.
I had a point to share with you all.
Particularly, i find the following difference b/w the invasion of west over us, and invasion of cholas over the east.
1. The west indulged in brutal ways in suppressing the common man and forcing their religion on us. Whereas, the cholas, were ruthless, but once they won, preserved the native tradition and did not forcefully impose any belief on them. (Is there any counter point to this.) I am saying this because, of two reasons. One is that there is no concept of exclusive belief in our society. second is that many of the indigneous traditions in the east asia is still preserved, although overtaken by islam.
2. The western imperialism is expoitative, and destructive. They looted as much as possible, and did not worry about the social stability & sustainability. Whereas, our cholas, created self sustaining communities in the east asia, and hence, both our settlers and the locals benefitted out of it. Through out the reign of cholas, the conquered nation also flourished along with the chola country. this is not the case with british imperialism. (Hope, this is the case with most of our kingdoms.. they did not collapse the society)
As of now, i have only these two differences. But, i believe there are many b/w western imperialism & the conquest of our kings.
I am writing this, because, some of our members earlier stated that war is war, and british did to us what our kings had did to others earlier. I believed that could not be the case, and when i explored more, i found the above major differences.
> > > > I am writing this, because, some of our members earlier stated that war is > > war, and british did to us what our kings had did to others earlier. I > > believed that could not be the case, and when i explored more, i found the > > above major differences. > > > > Alternate opinions are welcome.. > >
hi
when you mean imperialistic cholas ..can you be more specific about which king you are talking about....we have all been sold kalki's version of cholas, but at times we need to sit back and see things in perspective .... a hero of a story is diff from a king..
except for the northern part of lanka during RRC times - there is no record of cholas establishing any permanent settlements - the merchant guilds are a different matter altogether.
there are numerous records that talk of the brutality of chola raids and how the spoils are shared among the king/generals/ soilders ....including RRC giving generous donations to the big temple after each conquest. the naval assault of rjc on srivijaya was a clinical strike on every major port town - aimed to weaken the very structure of srivijayan economy. the mahavamsa talks of a large number of pillage ( agree that we need to discount both side accounts by a certain degree but then the destruction wrought by RJC on ganga negera was so much that he completed raised it to dust)
take the following oft quoted eg:
An inscription at Hotfur in Dharwar District states that the Chola king with an army of 900,000 men invaded the Ratta country, sacking the towns. They pillaged the whole country [about Dharwar], slaughtered women, children and Brahmans, and taking the girls destroyed their caste'. Rajaraja's inscriptions claim a complete victory for him, saying that he conquered the 'Ratta 7lakh country'. The Chajukya records however assert that the attack was a mere raid and that the Chola forces were driven away to their own territory. It appears from the records of Rajendra I, son of Rajaraja, that it was he who commanded the invading army
Madan.. I dont have any references to quote now.. I just got this feeling, and shared to this group.. Probably this discussion may bring about more details
your mail is very Interesting vijay..
In this group, some posted a very lengthy detail of Chola's conquest of Burma & east asia. In that, he told, that the cholas stationed a part of their army, to protect his country's traders in burma.
Also, it was recorded that there was flourishing trade b/w burma & chola dynasty.. similarly in south east asia.. If there is flourishing trade, then there should be wealth generation in the conquested country..
Also, what you have described is battles & Wars.. I am not going in to these details.. A war is terrible, in all aspects.
But, i was focussing on how the society responded to these conquests.. In your case, (although i have some reservations over it, over slaughter of brahman & women), we need to find out how dharwar raised again..
Its like some one destroying the building that we built, and some one destroying our capability to build a building.. in that aspect, the core strength of the society is preserved, in the case of cholas. (Even under mughal invasion, our societal structure remained the same, so that they could rebuild their kingdom)
> (Even under mughal invasion, our societal structure remained the same, > so that they could rebuild their kingdom)
I would recommend that members read Khuswant singh's "delhi" novel to learn about hindu life under the sultanate. its about day to day life, how hindu women also wear purdah, how promotions are denied to hindu clerks, how hindu's denied access to places of worship start going to sufi saints. he even goes into the detail of how hindu men in an integrated office are teaed for their religion.
It was by Tamils(locals) writing about the invasion of enemies (Muslims) and the closing of Temples because of them.
Now without in anyway casting doubt on the above or the muslim atrocities on Hindus.
How much credence will you give about the depiction about the barbaric attrocities carried out by the British on Tamil womens and childrens in a Tamil film made by a hardcover Tamil lover without knowing the British side of the story ?
-I think we would be moving away from the mainstream discussions if we move into this. just last month the moderators put an end to the discussion on a similar topic. i wish members would use private channels to discuss topics outside the aims and the purview of the group
I guess brutality is subjective...But I read an article in the Guardian website last year by the India historian William Dalrympyle. He wrote about the total destruction and plundering of Anuradhapura by the Chola army (unlike Ponniyin Selvan!). He also wrote that when they invaded Karnataka, the Cholas were very brutal in killing even children. Apparently there is an inscription (Chalukyan) in Bijapur stating this. Anyway, all war is horrific and brutal, probably. People gave up on fighting a fair war even in the Mahabharata! Also there is perhaps still a difference between the Cholas and invaders like Chengiz Khan (who is a hero in his native Mongolia!).
If I locate the link to Dalrympyle's article, I will post it here.
> > Question > > 1) Is the Chola King name specified in the inscription ? > 2) Who wrote it and why - meaning people write about their > achievement understandable, but do people write about their defeat or > suffering to be displayed. > The intent is very important. > 3) Who wrote the inscriptions ? > > Advance thanks. > >
hi, nice question .. will try and answer with what little i have read - this particular battle is referred to in three different inscriptions - one of chalukya, one of rrc and one of rjc ( apart from taking credit for this conquest in numerous meeikirthi inscriptions). so will try and focus on the three inscriptions.
i dont have the actual epigraphica india volume ( think volume II)..
1) This inscriptions was etched by chalukya ( probably by the chalukyan commander ...Sathyashraya)so you need to discount it a bit. the year of the inscription is 1008 and is found in Rattapadi ( current day Chitradurga, Bellary district). The Chalukya records however assert that the attack was a mere raid and that the Chola forces were driven away to their own territory. from the foll inscrption you can see that the battle should have occurred 5 year ago .. maybe it took so many years for the chalukyas to regain the territory and they inscribed this discredit the cholas. How much of this is true is anyones guess, but the last part that it was not a total victory for the chola forces is now well accepted. ( so the following inscription -ie the chola version cannot be taken as entirely true)
2)Rajaraja's inscriptions claim a complete victory for him 1003 AD, saying that he conquered the 'Ratta 71/2-lakh country'.further indicating that the Chola army elephants wrought havoc on the banks of the river Tungabhadra.
There was another reference which stated that RRC considered his victory over sathyasharaya to be very important and offerred worship to the big temple with golden flowers!! ( interesting lead.. need to check if the big temple was up by that time - remember reading that the main lingam in the big temple being so huge that it was not possible to install it after building the vimanam - and hence it was first installed - around 1004 AD and the temple built around it and since once a diety is installed the pooja has to start, the temple pooja started from 1004 AD itself...
3) It appears from the records of Rajendra, that he too claims credit for the same battle. Hence it is assumed that RJC led the forces under his father's reign. ....that it was he who commanded the invading army
However, my query is on the effect of such wars on the society and common people..
All wars are ruthless.. there is no doubt in it..
But, how those wars are conducted and what effect they had on the common people.
There are certainly clear differences over wars waged by our kings, by mughals and by britishers.
In among our kings, the key institutions were untouched. Like, endowments to educational institutions, endowments to temples, and other social institutions remain untouched. For example, when sarfoji king won over cholas, they inherited big temple.. however, they respected it & retained all its previous statuses.
So, in the wars waged by our kings, the intent was to defeat the enemy king and his army.. not to destroy his kingdom..
However, when muslims invaded us, they destroyed, takshila, nalanda, and whatever they come across in their way.. THe intent was to destroy all pagans, all paganic institutions, pagan temples, and to convert the pagan people.. With such intent, they destroyed the entire society, including the common mass..
When Britishers invaded, their prime motive was looting.. in polite terms wealth.. I dont say, their intent is to destroy all other countries.. But, the background, and the social setup they came from, made them unable to understand our society and its polity.
Hence, whereever they found wealth, they took over it, without caring for what purpose it was for?
And there is one more angle to it.. The christian missionaries had a secret agenda behind the european invasion. Their ideology, had greater impact over the administration, and hence, unlike muslims who directly destroyed, these missionaries, caused greater havoc by nailing in the roots of our society. Like, false propoganda, attacking the psyche, and many other intellectual attacks were made, that permanently made our political class extinct..
This is the reason, for Goa Inquisition, and other atrocities.
So, in this background, can we equate all wars in the same plane?
The wars of our kings were ruthless, but they retained the social structure and preserved it.. it was the case, when cholas invaded burma, and other south east asia.. ie, they extracted tribute, but in a sustainable way..
The wars of muslims were barbaric.. they destroyed everything they came across.. and later, they imbibed our political structure, but made the entire hindu people as more or less slaves.
The britishers were intellectual looters, that they exploited everything without caring for the subjugated society's sustainability..
I will hold off shooting my comments about the inscriptions till I lay my hands on the actual inscriptions.
But in general
1) Three inscriptions how to choose which particular point in each inscription to believe or disbelieve.If the paper which studied the three inscriptions and laid out the reasoning behind the conclusion is out there, please let me know. 2) Victors write history or inscriptions. Losers have oral history. Why the trouble to document a mere raid by the Chalukayas? Why inscribe about the killings(killings are normal in war is it not)? Inscriptions are for a purpose like temple closure-opening, land grants, temple services, winning a war , odd poems etc. I would love to know various subjects covered by inscriptions especially inscription about war losses. Oral literature like songs, stories of attrocities of enemies, stories of valour are understandable. 3) What kind of person makes a inscriptions - wealthy, powerful, state respresentative? 4) As for as propaganda is concerned, it was captive audience in those days, no access to multiple channels of information. So why negative propaganda. I mean positive propaganda makes sense but negative propaganda especially when real estate was expensive?
Some of the points might have been raised earlier so please...