It is a millennium-old murder mystery that remains unresolved. The assassination of Aditya Karikala, the son of Sundara Chola and the elder brother of Raja Raja I, in mysterious circumstances in 969 CE, baffles historians and history buffs alike, since it took place when his father was in power.
Except for a stone inscription at Udayarkudi in the present day Cuddalore district that talks about the punishment handed to four persons who were part of the conspiracy to kill Aditya Karikala, there is hardly anything that points the finger at the assassins.
Differences of opinion
Historians, including K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, Sadasiva Pandarathar and K.K. Pillai, have differences of opinion and have come out with their own interpretations. The assassination also left behind the question how the Chola empire might have taken shape had Aditya Karikala become the king instead of Raja Raja I, as the brothers were said to have been miles apart in their approach towards all issues.
Aditya Karikala, alias Aditya II, has been described as a great warrior, known for his valour, bravery and fierce temper, the qualities exemplified on screen by actor Vikram in the film Ponniyin Selvan I. In history, he was known as ‘Pandiyan Thalaikonda Parakesari’, a reference to the fame he had gained by beheading Pandya King Veerapandian. As the elder son of Sundara Chola, he was the rightful heir to the throne, but Uttama Chola, who was too young to become the king at the time of the death of his father Gandaraditya (Sundara Chola’s uncle), replaced Sundara Chola. As per a compromise reached earlier, Sundara Chola’s sons were to become heirs of the throne after Uttama Chola.
Nilakanta Sastri, author of The Cholas, after ascertaining that the inscriptions at Udayarkudi in Kattumannarkudi taluk were issued by Raja Raja I himself, raises a pertinent question: why the murder of Aditya II “remained unavenged throughout the sixteen years in which Uttama Chola ruled, Sundara Chola himself having either died of a broken heart soon after the murder, or after having found the natural course of justice obstructed by a powerful conspiracy”.
Sundara Chola died in his golden palace at Kancheepuram and was known as “Ponmaligaitunjiya Devar”.
Nilakanta Sastri argues that “it seems impossible under the circumstances to acquit Uttama Chola of the part of the conspiracy that resulted in the foul murder of the heir-apparent”. But his views are rejected by Sadasiva Pandarathar and K.K. Pillai, a student of Nilakanta Sastri.
“He [Uttama Chola] formed a party of his own and brought about the murder of Aditya II, and having done so, he forced the hands of Sundara Chola to make him heir-apparent, as there was no help for it, Sundara had to acquiesce in what he could not avert,” writes Nilakanta Sastri. There is also an insinuation that Raja Raja I also had a role in the assassination of his elder brother.
About the Thiruvalangadu plates that talk in detail about the death and the assumption of the throne by Raja Raja I, Nilakanta Sastri notes that they seem to gloss over the story on purpose and make statements which, though enigmatic in themselves, are fairly suggestive of the true course of events, when read together with the datum furnished by the Udayarkudi inscriptions.
Conspirators named
The Udayarkudi inscriptions names four persons — Soman, Ravidasan alias Panchavan Piramadhi Rajan, Parameswaran alias Irumudichola Pramadhi Rajan and Malaiyooran alias Revadasa Kramavithan — as the conspirators and talk about confiscation of their property.
Sadasiva Pandarathar, in his book Pirkala Cholar Charithiram (The History of the Later Cholas), says they were brothers and the titles of the two brothers suggest they were Brahmins and held higher posts in the government. His views are also shared by K.K. Pillai. He rejects the theory that Uttama Chola was behind the murder. Sadasiva Pandarathar also sees the hand of the Pandyas in the murder to avenge the killing of Veerapandiyan, saying Panchavan Piramadhi Rajan was an official of the Pandya kingdom.
Kudavasal Balasubramanian, an expert in the Cholas, wonders whether the conspirators would have remained in the Chola country after assassinating the crown prince.
Both Pandarathar and K.K. Pillai are of the opinion that if Uttama Chola was involved in the murder of Aditya II, his brother Raja Raja I, who enjoyed the support of people, would not have remained silent. He would have captured the throne. These two historians have written extensively on the subject and their object seems to repudiate the claims of Nilakanta Sastri, who has concluded that Raja Raja I alias Arulmozhi “accepted a compromise to avoid a civil war and waited for his turn” though “he was not a coward, nor was he lacking in political ability or legal right”.
To reiterate his point that Uttama Chola is innocent and Raja Raja I held him in high esteem, Pandarathar cites from the Thiruvalangadu plates to say that Raja Raja I had never nurtured the desire to rule the kingdom so long as his uncle Uttama Chola was in power.
Pillai says the name, Uttama Chola, itself suggests he was virtuous. “People would not have called him ‘Uttaman’ had he had links with the murder of the prince who had secured victories for the kingdom. If Uttama was able to conspire the assassination of such a great warrior, it would have been easy for him to eliminate his younger brother Raja Raja I,” he reasons. The mystery continues in the absence of evidence.
Of course, there could be other inscriptions and copper plates on the details of the murder, the murderers and the punishment handed to them. But they could be either lost in time or destroyed, leaving the assassination just a dark-room episode in the history of the Cholas.
