Talk:Tailapa II

[edit] Tailapa-II

Sir, I would like to seek WP:3O on the claim made in this article about Tailapa-II's supposed victory over Raja Raja I, as I think it is totally baseless and completely inaccurate.

Thank you.

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tailapa-II - Chalukya Dynasty -Corrections required through deletion of inaccurate and unverified information/claim given in this page - ADDED REQUEST: FOR DISCUSSIONS AND REVIEW BY THIRD PARTY ON SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ME BELOW

Sir,

Many thanks for your feedback on my efforts to rectify errors and inaccurate bits of information on some of the pages devoted to Chalukya Kings. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have no brief or prejudice either towards or against the Chalukyas or Cholas or any other empire or kingdom. While your feedback on how to edit or invite historians or other participants for discussion was commendable, there were a couple of things that I couldn't understand and with frequent visits to the site I hope to learn more.

I had written comments on two chapters (for the present) devoted to Chalukya Kings, mainly Tailapa-II and his son and successor Satyashraya. Perhaps my method was wrong and so those comments got deleted, but being a new member (though it isn't my right) at least I could have been guided on which section to approach for initiating a debate or discussion etc. for pointing out inaccuracies and contribute to either correction of that page or be corrected myself.

Regarding the page on Tailapa-II, let me start this way. There are two pages, one on Tailapa-II and the other on his contemporary Chola King, Raja Raja Chola I.

In the page on Raja Raja I the following is attributed to him (let us remember that Raja Raja I took over as king or got coronated in the year 985 AD):

The southern kingdoms of Pandyas, Cheras and the Sinhalas were often allied against the Cholas.[5] It was the case when Rajaraja came to the throne. Rajaraja's initial campaigns were against the combined Pandya and Chera armies. There is no evidence of any military campaign undertaken by Rajaraja until the eighth year of his reign. During this period he was engaged in organising and augumenting his army and in preparing for military expeditions.

In contrast, the page on Tailapa-II states the following, inaccurately in my view: In 992. Raja Raja Chola was vanquished and the Chalukya monarch secured one hundred and fifty elephants

Here there is no question of either of these two kings having fought each other and hence, neither of this won over or got defeated by the other king. Further evidence corresponds as under (from wikipedia's own pages, which may also not be shorn of evidence)..

[edit] Kandalur Salai The very first military achievement of Rajaraja’s reign was the campaign in the Kerala country c 994 C.E.. Rajaraja’s early inscriptions use the descriptive ‘Kandalur salai kalamarutta’ (காந்தளுர் சாலைக் களமறுத்த). In this campaign Rajaraja is said to have destroyed a fleet in the port of Kandalur, which appears to have been situated in the dominions of the Chera King Bhaskara Ravi Varman Thiruvadi (c. 978 – 1036 C.E.).[8][9] Inscriptions found around Thanjavur show that frequent references are made to the conquest of the Chera king and the Pandyas in Malai-nadu (the west coast of South India). Kandalur-Salai, which later inscriptions claim to have belonged to the Chera king, was probably held by the Pandyas when it was conquered by Rajaraja.[10] Some years' fighting apparently was necessary before the conquest could be completed and the conquered country could be sufficiently settled for its administration could be properly organised.

Sir, through the above example, I further want to state (I leave it to you to decide whether it is a 'proof' or not by verifying yourself from the relevant wikipedia pages) that not just prior to 993 (which was the 8th year of Raja Raja I's reign - considering that for a period of 8 years from the day of his accession, Raja Raja I did not fight any war, which means he neither defeated or get defeated by anyone in war. Not just this Sir, after 993 i.e. during the years 994-997 he was busy in the conquest of three kingdoms as per the Kandalur inscriptions, i.e. the Chera, Pandya and Sri Lanka and not just that he spent 'Some Years' (as per the above para) before the said conquests could be completed and the conquered countries sufficiently brought under Chola control.

The above para again proves that even during the period 993-998 there was no occasion for Tailapa-II to fight Raja Raja I. In any case as Tailapa-II page would show, Tailapa-II was succeeded by his son Satyashraya in the year 997.

Now let us see what inscriptions favouring Tailapa-II himself have to speak off by way of his relations or adversarial attitude towards the Cholas. These inscriptions come from District Chitradurga, Karnataka and I request you to pls. see the following link:

http://www.visitchitradurga.com/linkfiles/historyfiles/rechalukya.php

In these pages lines are devoted to Kings of various dynasties that ruled and controlled what is now known as Chitradurga in modern Karnataka. The specific inscription with regard to Tailapa-II and his animosity to the Cholas is as under:

Tailapa

To return to the Chalukyas, Taila or Tailapa, who not only regained all the territories of his forefathers but even extended them in all directions, must have been an active and ambitious ruler and has been aptly described in the inscriptions as full of desire to fight with the Chola king and as being a destroying fire to the Cholas. It may be remarked at the very outset that if the early Chalukyas had been largely occupied in the South in wars against the Pallavas, the later Chalukyas had to engage them­selves in that quarter in struggles with the Cholas.

Sir, the above lines speak of his keenness to fight the Chola kings and of being a destroying fire to the Cholas. This and the subsequent inscriptions do not speak of his engagement in any war with the Cholas, especially of a victory he might have won against the Cholas, who during the periods 950-1070 were the most powerful empire in South India. Especially Tailapa-II would have proudly announced his 'vanquishing' Raja Raja I in most parts of the Kingdom and filled this news with various inscriptions? Do we have such proofs? No, Sir because we have in Chitradurga, one inscription in the year 992 itself which speaks as under:

We have one inscription in this district, from Vasana in Davangere taluk, dated 992, referring to the reign of Taila II (973-997) under his title Ahavamalla. At that time, Kadambalige was under one Jatarasa, a Sinda chief.

At least in the above inscription with all fanfare the news of Tailapa-II as Ahavamalla defeating Raja Raja I Chola could or should have occured but it doesn't. In addition, Sir, I have enclosed excerpts from the wikipedia page on Raja Raja I which says that he spent a few years from 994 onwards winning over not one but three provinces i.e. Sri Lanka, Chera and Pandya Kingdoms. With Raja Raja I concentrating on provinces to the South of the Chola Kingdom and with Tailapa-II consolidating in North Karnataka in the Manyakheta/Malkhed region fighting with the Paramaras and Gujarat and South Maharashtra Kingdoms, there was absolutely no occasion for Tailapa-II to fight a war with Raja Raja I, let alone either defeating or losing to him.

This much is my contention based on which, I humbly request to kindly remove the inaccurate line attributing a victory of Tailapa-II over Raja Raja I in 992 be deleted.

I keenly look forward to your feeback.

Thanks

Srirangam99 (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)(talk) 05:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Further information on Tailapa-II - request for deletion of inaccurate and unverified information Sir,

As further proof on whether or not Tailapa-II (Chalukya Kingdom - Later Chalukyas) went to war with Raja Raja Chola I in AD 992, I request you to visit this link also:

http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_9/chalukyas_of_kalyani.html

In fact the excerpts relevant to my current discussion with you are also produced herein for an impartial view and consequent review, thirty party examination and further discussion with fellow historians for taking a final view as to whether or not the lines mentioning (falsely in my view, Sir) a victory for Tailapa-II over Raja Raja Chola I in 992 should be deleted. The relevant extracts are placed below (which you can yourself see by visiting the above site):

No. 75.

(A. R. No. 81 of 1904.)

ON THE THIRD SLAB SET UP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE KALLESVARA TEMPLE AT BAGALI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, SAME DISTRICT.

This is dated Saka 909, Sarvajit, Vaisakha, su. 3, Adityavara corresponding to A.D. 987 April 3, Sunday, the tithi being current for about 4 hours on the next day. It refers itself to the reign of the Chalukya king Ahavamalladeva and states that while his Mahasamanta Aytavarma was ruling Kisukalu (du) seventy and Kogali five-hundred, the fifty (Mahajanas) of Balguli made a gift of a garden for the service of the god Adityadeva consecrated by Duggimayya.

No. 76.

(A. R. No.101 of 1904.)

ON THE 17TH SLAB SET UP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SAME TEMPLE

This is dated Saka 913, Khara, Magha, su. 5, Mangalvara, corresponding to A.D. 991 January 12 Tuesday and states that, at the five-hundred, the Chalukya king Ahavamalladeva confirmed the toll contribution on betle leaves formrly fixed by the illustrious Kannaradeva (of the Rashtrakuta family). Adityavarmarasa is said to have been ruling Kogali five-hundred. The fifty and the thousand are also said to have made a gift of some tolls to a certain Barik-Echa. Chandoja engraved this.

No. 77.

(A. R. No. 36 of 1904.)

ON A SLAB SET UP TO THE EAST OF THE MANDAPA IN FRONT OF THE BASTI AT KOGALI, HADAGALLI TALUK, SAME DISTRICT.

This is dated Saka 914, Nandana, Pushya, ba. 12, Sukravara, Uttarayana-samkranti corresponding to A.D. 992 December 23 Friday and belongs to the reign of the Chalukya king Ahavamalladeva who was ruling from Rodda. His feudatory Adityavarmarasa of the Kadamba family, which was noted for ten horse sacrifices, was ruling Kogali five-hundred and Sundavatti twelve. The king is stated to have granted manya lands to the Brahmans, Settis, Gavundas and the five Mathas headed by the sthanadhipati Ganadharadeva and fixed the rate of taxes payable on other lands. It also specifies the fines to be imposed on those who violate customs or commit adultery and other offences. The nose of the woman guilty of adultery is to be cut off and the adulterer put to death. A theif also is to be put to death. Causing wounds and blood by beating is punished by a fine of 8 panas. The Mahajanas, the Gavundas and the five Mathas are exempted from bitti (compulsory labour) in the king’s service.

In the above inscription Sir, what is significant is that both the earlier Chalukya Kings like Pulakesi II, Vikramaditya II etc. have always, through their inscriptions, proudly proclaimed their victories over their contemporaries, especially the Pallavas, who were their prime adversaries before the advent of the Cholas. This practice was followed by a successor of Tailapa, i.e. King Somesvara I (also called Somesvara Ahavamalla and Trailokya Ahavamalla), who in one of his inscriptions of the period 1054-55 claims to be the 'destroyer of Rajadhiraja' (who was killed in battle with Somesvara I at Koppal, but that very war was won by the Cholas because Rajadhiraja's youngest brother Rajendra-II immediately took command of the army, re-galvanized his forces and defeated Somesvara I's army - this fact is in fact, proudly claimed in Chola inscriptions too, which is indicative of intense rivalry between both these houses).

Similarly Raja Raja Chola I too describes himself in his inscriptions as conqueror of the Chera, Pandya and Lanka kingdoms calling himself Mummudi Cholan (occupier of three kingdoms), Raja Raja I also called himself the conqueror of Rattapadi, which is an area north of Manyakheta, capital of the later Chalukyas falling both in modern North Karnataka and Southern Maharashtra.

Sir, what I seek to convey is that while and when Kings of both kingdoms did not hesitate to proclaim their victories over their rivals (including each other), what prevented Tailapa-II (who no doubt first re-claimed the Chalukya Kingdoms from his masters the Rashtrakutas and then spent the subsequent years consolidating and further occupying those territories of the Chalukyas which were in occupation of the Rashtrakutas and their friendly kingdoms)from proudly proclaiming in the above-referred Inscription No. 77what undoubtedly must have been a very famous and remarkable achievement (i.e. victory over or vanquishing of Raja Raja I ande securing 150 elephants etc. etc.) during his reign considering Tailapa-II himself was a very strong king himself and had been ruling since 973 and by 992 AD had already been ruling for 19-20 years and had thoroughly consolidated his kingdom and himself?? Equally significant, Sir, is the fact that this inscription itself is dated in the year 992 and not just that, its date corresponds to the end of the year 992 AD by which time surely Tailapa-II would have fought (this imaginary war) against Raja Raja Chola I and surely he would never have hesitated in proclaiming through this and many other such inscriptions his achievement of having vanquished Raja Raja Chola I. Why did he not do anything like that? The answer, Sir, is that Tailapa-II NEVER fought any war against Raja Raja I .. not in AD 992 not in 993 and certainly not between 994-998 when Raja Raja I spent 'few years' in first defeating the Kings of Lanka, Chera and Pandya countries and subsequently devoting himself to the establishment of Chola rule in those conquered kingdoms. Besides, to repeat, by AD 997 Tailapa-II had been succeeded on the Chalukya throne by his son Satyashraya.

With these bits of information and accompanying logic and reasoning, Sir, I hope I have produced convincing evidence in support of my contention which is that it is completely incorrect to say that Raja Raja I the Chola King was defeated by Western (or Later) Chalukya King Tailapa-II in the year 992 AD. I assure you Sir, that I will keep scouring through other history pages, records and inscriptions and produce every available evidence in support of my above contention.

Thank you and I hope that the correct decision will be taken under your direction or supervision.

In addition, it is submitted Sir, that I have been pursuing with Wikipedia by placing these comments on the page of KNM also. Perhaps, I have not got a reply because I am unaware of the exact procedure for seeking review of history pages for removal of inaccurate information given in those pages. May I request for an appropriate review of my submissions which I believe I have backed up with sufficient proof drawn from the various inscriptions as given in the website www.whatsindia.com/inscriptions by also giving the hyperlinks in support of my contentions. My email i.d. is srirangam99@gmail.com where may be one of the experts or reps from wikipedia may like to write to me and explain in detail the procedure for seeking such third party reviews.

Thanks