Think history, think of the Mauryas, the Guptas, the Sultanate and the Mughals. Maybe, somewhere down the line sneak in a chapter on the Cholas, and a paragraph or two on the likes of the Pandeyas, the Cheras, the Vakatakas and the rest. Some though have gone beyond this lopsided approach to our history and focussed on the achievements of the Cholas, the empire that lasted more than a millennium. Many years ago, the venerable Nilakant Sastri came up with a landmark study of the Cholas. Recently, S. Chandnibi, an academic at Aligarh Muslim University, concentrated on epigraphical data from the dynasty in her book, “Epigraphical Reading in the Chola History” to reveal to us some of the evidence of the vastness of the empire.
Beyond Nilakant Sastri, not many top historians seem to have focussed exclusively on the Cholas. Your book fills that vacuum. How challenging was it to do a book on the Cholas that goes beyond academic circles?
I dare not to be placed anywhere near K.A. Nilakanta Sastri. He a giant, never left a stone unturned in the field of Cholas, which itself is too big a challenge for anyone to progress further. Next handicap is the sources, where we should look to epigraphy only, as we lack literary sources as compared to contemporary north India. Among the painstakingly copied inscriptions, ASI has published little, and also the efforts of the State government are too little when compared to other neighbouring States. So one has to wait for permission
The Cholas were renowned for local self-administration. Were they the harbingers of local self government in modern India?
We may say so. The ancient north Indian literature refers to republican States and two different houses of the State, viz Sabha and Samithi, and we hardly see its practicality here. But Sabha and its full fledged functions are quite obvious in the regime of the Cholas. In certain issues —irrespective of the difficulties of matching with the exact perspectives of present-day democracy — definitely we are yet to catch up with the Chola system, especially in dealing with corruption in general and politicians in particular. The most amazing aspect was their effort to maintain zero tolerance towards public corruption. Public money swindlers were debarred from contesting the elections for life.
Could you elaborate on the Cholas’ justice system?
It was more practical in a certain sense, like when two brothers fought with each other and one was murdered, the other was exempted from imprisonment taking into account the aged parents left with no other sons; he was left free with a caution to guard his parents. The caste-based justice of Manu did not find routes with the Cholas’ justice. At the village level grievances were dissolved by discussion, unmindful of whether it was day or night. Traditions were given importance but overcome if documental evidence was produced. The various stages of the present system, right from filing a case to the final judgement including the right to appeal, was followed in the Chola judiciary. The king’s court was the only court of appeal. Even the Brahmins were not spared; they were imprisoned, fined, had their property confiscated and were deprived of their professional duties in the temples for generations. Special care was taken to collect the swindled public money. We do not hear about hard punishments like thrashing, being trampled under elephants and amputation. An example is the case of the murder of a prince by a group of Brahmins; the royal authority did not execute them but confiscated all their and their relatives’ property. At the same time, a very little parallel to Manu’s influence could also be felt.
As youngsters we learn about Mauryan Emperor Ashoka’s expedition to Sri Lanka as also the Battle of Kalinga. Yet we are told little about how Raja Raja Chola I’s empire included Sri Lanka as well as Kalinga. How do you explain this dichotomy?
This particular question may open a Pandora’s box. The historians of north India really far exceed in the subject while the south is not yet close to them. Eventually these developments led to a mental picture that the history of north of the Vindayas is the history of the country itself. The historical writings undermined the south and used a blanket term “Indian” — though neglecting the southern touch. I can list at least 50 such books, from my very department’s library . The chapter “Feudalism in South Indian Context” of my book is self-explanatory in this context. Though scholars the world over accept that the so-called undeciphered Harappan script has links to languages of the Dravidian family, we prefer to leave it aside as undeciphered. Though the familiar division of Indian society into four on caste basis has been checked and opposed right from its initiation in the Vedic age, still the basic text books do not show this. All this implies the need for rewriting our history books with absolute objectivity. A senior historian has voiced long back that Indian history should start from the banks of river Kaveri instead of the Ganga.
On similar lines our students are told about southern kings in one single chapter, in which the Cholas, Pandeyas, Cheras are all clubbed together despite the fact that often Cheras, Sinhalas as also the Pandeyas allied against the Cholas. Doesn’t this short shrift to an important Indian dynasty deprive our students of a more balanced representation of our past?
Of course, there is no other dynasty in the whole of Indian history, perhaps the universe, that has survived and continued to rule right from B.C to the 13th A.D — which includes the complete ancient period and partially the medieval one, with ups and downs, except the three, viz the Cheras, Cholas and Pandeyas. The Greek and Roman writers exhibit a sense of fear over the gold drain into these kingdoms caused by the excessive imports in the Augustus Era. The two epics of India, Ramayana and Mahabharata, do refer to them. Some of the tribes in the South East Asian islands go with the names of the three dynasties. Asokan inscriptions refer to them as neighbours, meaning they were independent of the Mauryan yoke. Kharavela of Kalinga perceived the confederation of these three dynasties as a threat. Even in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the land beyond carry these dynastical names as their place names today too. The Cholas were the first to excel in a navy and succeeded in subduing the Far East islands politically, culturally and commercially. Until the advent of the Europeans in sea commerce, the southern powers had both east and west overseas commerce in their hands. Embassies were sent to China as an extension of commerce. The dialogue can go on.
Yes, our younger generations are deprived of a marvellous piece of their history, which is definitely very unfortunate.
