Adiyen has read SPS sir's useful post on why Rajendrar expanded to the North. Historians tend to agree that there a small finite number of reasons why States expand: (1) obtaining a more secure border either by direct annexation or by creation of buffer states e.g. 1938 Nazi invasion of Poland as a buffer against Russia; (2) access to vital resources such as food, water, access to sea or other trade routes, fuel e.g. Roman expansion into North Africa and Egypt to secure grain; (3) space for expanding population (lebenstraum); (4)to leverage on economies of scale by combining small states into a larger State e.g. the Japanese Shogun wars of the Tokugawa era; (5)need to balance trade deficit by securing a larger market for domestic products; and (6) a strong conviction in one's obligation to civilise other 'less enlightened' countries e.g. early Muslim conquests
The problem with Rajendrar's expansion to the North (and even to Eezham) is that none of the above reasons seem to fit in as a reasonable objective he was aiming to achieve. SPS sir argues for (1) that Rajendrar was essentially trying to secure his borders, but it is a slippery slope argument ("when is a border ever really secure?" - this is why Nazis and Napoleon and Alexander before them were forced to keep expanding?). If Rajendrar really wanted his borders to be secure, he SHOULD have focused foremost on pacifying the Pandiya territory - which was always a source of trouble for the Chozhas and which eventually brought about its demise.
My theory is that essentially Rajendrar was trying to achieve legitimacy for his reign by performing his own version of the Digvijayam, an essential part of the the Rajasuya sacrifice which conferred emperorship on the king who performed it. Pallava kings claimed descent from Aswatthama, son of Dronocharya (Simhavarman kalvettu in Andhra Nellur Amaravathy)and consequently from Bhradwaj Kotra and Brahma himself. They were always careful to perform various yaagas and were crowned by kudamuzhukku method. These were the methods accepted as definitive qualifications to kingship in the northerm kingdoms. The concept that the stronger deserved to be king was not accepted as per dharma sastra which was essentially dedicated to preserving strict social hierarchy.
The early medieval Chozas seemed to seek this legitimacy and perhaps even emperorship. To the northerners and others they would have been seen as upstarts.
The digvijaya theory fits in because all the prospective king has to do is to send his horse to various territories, subjugate those who did not wish to submit and bring back gifts from those who submitted or who were subjugated. There was no need to colonise or even consolidate one's victories. More importantly, it offered a classically accepted way of establishing kingly authority.
The building of the Periya Koil and Gangai Konda Chozhapuram etc seem to be part of this elaborate myth-making - to create a legitimate dynastic pedigree.
One last word about civilising other countries - adiyen agrees this is a very sensitive issue. Countries have been destroyed by the arrogance and cruelty of other nations thinking they were appointed by God to civilise others. However, talking about 3 - 9 Century SE Asia, it is a fact that the influences of the Pallava and Chozha empires helped create civil structures, administrative principles, written scripts (based on brahmi), culture, religious ceremonies and philosophy for a group of people who did not have any or much of these. The fact that the indigenous people appreciated this civilising influence is shown by the numerous still-existing Hindu influences in the language, social structure, art and culture of Cambodia, Thailand and Java. More importantly, the civilising role played by the Pallavas was not imposed on the indigenous inhabitants.
Adiyen thinks this is very different from the arrogance of the European powers in the Great Game of the 19th Century.
I was just pondering and my mail was kind of pointer...
1. Securing border 2. access to vital resources 3. space for expanding population 4. by combining smaller states to larger ones for better economy 5. More Civlising - on personal conviction
I pointed out it was in the direction of securing borders... and did not get into more details in earlier mail.
However your view is :
Essentially Rajendra was trying to achieve legitimacy for his reign by performing his own version of the Digvijayam.
I would consider the first 4 points from what you enlisted... and add another 2 - 3 too.
But I fail to see your reasoning behind usage of " LEGITIMACY " ..
Rajendra was stepping on the Throne of an Empire which was atleast 160 years OLD already - which a very successful 30 year precedence !!
So instead of getting into detailed discussion on first 4 points and more, I will look at the roadmap you are spreading.
Adiyen will be preparing a more complete response to your points after some thought.
However, the digvijaya concept does not mean that the dynasty is illegitimate in the legal sense of the word. After all, even the Pandavas were said to have done the rajasuya and aswamedha to establish their rank of emperors even though they were from the pre-eminent Ishvaku line. Until they did this, they were not seen as legitimate emperors.
Almost all of Pallava kings including the first, Sivaskandavarman (300-325) conducted numerous yaagas to establish their imperial authority.
Similarly, I believe Raja Rajar's and Rajendrar's aim was to establish their emperorship and overlordship according to prvailing notions.
Digvijayam was a means of promoting bilateral relationship with a province without affecting its pride but at the same time identifying its dependancy over the powerful kingdom between the two - who will forge alliance at any hour of crisis - without getting into detailed modalities during crisis....
Matrimonial alliances - obviously another means to promote such bilateral...
Then there are sworn in enemies ::
Come what may, some selected powers will never shake hands ..
One Power will identify the neighbours of the opposing Power and try to befriend them... as now happening around our Nation ...
Now let us also recall FLAG MARCH .. when there is Unrest ..
Dig Vijayam -cum - LONG Flag march - with a specific purpose of BRINGING GANGES to Capital ..
Adiyen accepts that perhaps a formal definition of digvijayam is to build bilateral ties without lowering dignity of the weaker kingdom. But in actual practice by Chozha times, it had changed practically to a journey by a king demanding recognition of his supremacy as emperor And kings hardly went alone while on digvijayam! They were followed by a large army that proved quite persuasive to those kings who were not ready to submit.
Many of Raja Rajar's and Rajendrar's expansive conquests did not have any plausible political aims such as securing borders or obtaining vital materials - one thinks hard of what possible advantage kadaram would have had in the Chozha design!
Even if there were genuine aims, my argument is that the Chozhas did not follow through. Their aim seems to have been to build a comparable empire to the northern empires and to be recognised as chakravartins.
Their intense building programme seems to have been also a part of this imperial ambition.
It is interesting that in both these, Chozhas were imitating the Pallavas in both their imperial ambitions as well as building and cultural projects.
Finally, conquering the Ganges in my mind was a largely symbolic act - an extension of Chozha myth-making than anything else. The Ganges expedition led by Rajendrar (if indeed it was him and he was not supervising the building of Gangai Konda Chozhapuram), was not a lasting success, and seems to have been more aptly characterised as a raid.
Finally, is empire building wrong? NO. But I do have my reservations about the ability of the Chozhas to come up with a clear imperial policy. The Pallavas seemed to have a clear vision of what their empire should be known for - the Chozhas seemed to build their policy as they went along.
This may explain why the Chozha empire was never really glorious after Rajendrar. Raja Rajar and Rajendrar had carried the whole thing by their sheer personality and not by policy.
Adiyen supposes you would like to know why Pallavas are not listed there (please correct me if I am wrong). Ashoka died in 231 BC. The first known Pallava King who conducted asvameda yaaga was Sivaskandavarman who ruled no earlier than 250 AD. Raasamanikkanar considers him the first Pallava king to have his capital at Kanchi.
So its not surprising if Ashoka's edicts do not mention a Pallava empire.
Also, the purpose of his edicts is given by Ashoka himself in his Seventh Pillar Edict "I have done this so that among my sons and great grandsons, and as long as the son and moon shall endure, men may follow dharma". Ashoka's travels around India were a form of digvijaya with the motive of making kings submit to Buddha-dharma (as opposed to oneself).
But Ashoka never renounced use of force or capital punishment!
Ashoka is a complex character. His most famous edict talks about his remorse on destroying Kalinga and killing so many and deporting many more - but that edict is NOT found in Orissa (Kalinga). One wonders if the pious talk was only for others!
He was another emperor who carryed his whole (dharma) empire building project on his own personality and charisma. Romila Thapar says that the whole project collapsed after Ashola's death.
Dear Pallava Nambi Mark Sargunam, At present I am very busy in some other work. I have to go through all of your mails in depth. I will send my remarks after sometimes