Talk:Parantaka II

• Please replace the name 'Chola' (சோள) that means the name of an eatable grain, with 'Chozha' (சோழ) which means the name of a king and/or his dynasty.Helppublic (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Aditya II’s Assassination

203.76.129.202 - You have included the passage: "...But, evidences also prove that the pandyan spies are responsible for the death of Adiya II as they had their revenge for the assisination of their king in the battle of Chevur battle." - What evidence? Can you cite some references for this? According to available informaiton we only know that no one was punished for this crime throughout Uttama's reign. An inscription found in Udayarpatti states that some people had their property confiscated for 'Treasonous crimes'. The names of these people denote the possibility of them being part of Uttama's court.

The theory Pandyan spies killed Aditya II is simply a speculation with no solid proof. I am changing the copy to reflect his.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Venu62 (talk • contribs)

Purposely confusing Parantaka I with Parantaka II

@Ranithraj you have confused two regions of emperors of Chola even when the source which you used specify the regional date

Cholas by Nilkantha sastri pg 153 -154 ‘ From about 940 A.D , Parantaka experienced the increasing difficulty of defending an empire at a great many points; in less than fifty years a small principality had grown into a widespread dominion at the expense of its neighbouring states ; the very quickness of the expansion was fraught with danger and dynasties which had been dispossessed and driven out of their traditional homes could not all be expected to give in without further struggle. Nor was it likely that other powers like the Rastrakutas and the Eastern Calukyas would view without concern the progress of the Coja power. We have seen already that some time after 945 A. D., Parantaka experienced a repulse in Ceylon and failed to take from Udaya IV the Pandyan diadem. We must now turn to a narration of the occurrences elsewhere that must have had no small share in forcing Parantaka to give up the fight in Ceylon and acquiesce in his failure.’ I hope you have the ability to read your own sources he clearly specified the date ‘ After 945 A.D’ Which was during Parantaka I reign not Parantaka II and Parantaka II he did the invasion during Mahinda IV region and he was defeated as per sources.

South India and Ceylon by K.K Pilay pg-63 ‘ Sundara Chola Parantaka II (A. D. 957-73) and Ceyion: —Sundara Chola Parantaka II, a grandson of Parantaka I was involved in a struggle with Vira Pandya who declared his independence. In this move Vira Pandya was helped by Mahinda IV,the contemporary ruler of Ceylon, and in all probability a Ceylonese army had come to help Vira Pandya. But Sundara Chola succeeded in defeating the combined forces in two battles and it is said that Vira Pandya himself was killed by Aditya during the second battle." In retaliation for the help renderedby the Ceylonese to Vira Pandya, Sundara Chola's forces invaded Ceylon. Siriyavelar, the Chola general, was sent with an army to attack the Ceylonese king but he was killed in the fight with the Sinhalese army". The Culavamsa gives a detailed description of the triumph of the Sinhalese king through the valour of his general Sena and adds that the Chola army was obliged to make a friendly treaty with the king of Lankā" This book speaks about vira pandya getting support from Mahinda IV but K.K Pilay clearly says ‘PROBABLY’ and other historians such as Nilkantha sastri, Senerath Paranavithana and K.M De Silva and etc don’t even mention this event at all.

You have lied about a source and the other source itself clearly mentions ‘PROBABLY’ so stop reverting my edits without clear proof and discuss it in the talk page before doing any changes. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You are the one confused with the periods. This one happened during the reign of Parantaka II not parantaka I.

Read the source again, Nilakanda Sastry, Colas , 1955. Pg . 154

https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.4293/page/n170/mode/1up

"after the battle of Cevur in which Vira Pandya sustained a bad defeat, the Cola forces led, among others, by Parantaka siriveyelar of kodumbalur , continued the campaign into the Pandyan country and forced Vira Pandya to seek refuge in forests. The Pandya sovereign was on this occasion also supported by Ceylonese troops in his endeavour to resist Cola aggression "

I hope you have the ability to read the correct source and correct page. I clearly mentioned the book name and year, can't you even find the correct book and page? Take your time find this book, it is clearly mentioned. The passage you quoted talks about the event during parantaka 1 but here the passage I quoted talked about the event happened during the reign of parantaka 2.

Regarding this South India and Ceylon by K.K Pilay pg-63 ‘ Sundara Chola Parantaka II (A. D. 957-73) and Ceyion: —Sundara Chola Parantaka II, a grandson of Parantaka I was involved in a struggle with Vira Pandya who declared his independence. In this move Vira Pandya was helped by Mahinda IV,the contemporary ruler of Ceylon, and in all probability a Ceylonese army had come to help Vira Pandya. But Sundara Chola succeeded in defeating the combined forces in two battles "

He said in all probability not probably. In this context, "in all probability" means that it is highly likely or almost certain that a Ceylonese army came to help Vira Pandya. Stop misleading the sources.

so you are basically wrong in saying Nilakanda Sastry didn't mention this, he of course mentioned this. You couldn't find the right source and right page. And Pilay said in all probability not probably and he also believe this event happened.

this event was already in this article, you are the one who removed this on 22 june. So you stop removing this event. I also provided clear evidence so stop removing it. Ranithraj (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ranithraj - ‘ Read the source again, Nilakanda Sastry, Colas , 1955. Pg . 154

"after the battle of Cevur in which Vira Pandya sustained a bad defeat, the Cola forces led, among others, by Parantaka siriveyelar of kodumbalur , continued the campaign into the Pandyan country and forced Vira Pandya to seek refuge in forests. The Pandya sovereign was on this occasion also supported by Ceylonese troops in his endeavour to resist Cola aggression "This is what Nilkantha says - “ a boy, played with Vira Pandya in the battle, like a lion's whelp sporting with a tusker. The Karandai plates (vv. 24-5) mention the battle of Cevür adding that Vira Pandya was defeated and forced to climb the peaks of the Sahyädri for refuge. Aditya's heroism was probably exhibited in the field of Cevir to the south of the Sevali hills, the southern boundary of Pudukkottah, and that battle must have furnished the occasion for his claim that he took the head of Vira Pandya! The Leyden grant does not, like the Tiruva-langädu plates, state that Vira Pandya was Pandya War. killed by Aditya, and it is possible that the composer of the Tiruvälangädu plates, struck by the forcible simile in the Leyden grant, embellished the account of Aditya's contest with Vira Pandya; and his account of Aditya's rule adds nothing else to what we learn from the earlier grant. The chances are that, after the battle of Cevür in which Vira Pandya sustained a bad defeat, the Cola forces led, among others, by Paräntakan Siriyavelar of Kodumbalür, continued the campaign into the Pandya country, and forced Vira Pandya to seek refuge in the forests, The Pändya sovereign was on this occasion also supported by Ceylonese troops in his endeavour to resist the Cola aggression; for Siriyavelar led an Extended to expedition to Ceylon, and there he fell fight.Ceylon.ing before the ninth year of Sundara Cola;A.D. 965,55 The Mahavamsa, corroborating this account, records the following in the reign of Mahinda IV A.D. 956-72: 66 "The Vallabha king sent a force to Nagadipas to subdue this our country. The Ruler hearing this, the king sent thither the senapati Sena by name, to whom he had made over an army, to fight with the troops of the Vallabha king. The senapati betook himself thither, fought with the troops of this (Vallabha) king, defeated them and remained master of the battle-field. As the kings with the Vallabha (king) at their head, were unable to vanquish our king, they made a friendly treaty with the ruler of Lanka. In this way the fame of the king penetrated to Jambudipa, spreading over Lankä and crossing the ocean.” https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.4293/page/n169/mode/2up I have sent the link you could check it also in both colas volume 1 and Cholas does not mention also sastri speaks using plates and he also talks in probability not a definite statement either and the statement you mentioned isn’t even in the specific page. My bad my keyboard had auto corrected he never made it as definite statement but simply as it could have happened and this does not mean there’s a high chance of it happening either so such statement can’t be taken seriously, provide more new definite statements which goes with WP:Age Matters

You are the one which entered this so called invasion which isn’t even mentioned by most historians if you can’t provide definite sources stay away from editing or contact a admin to sought out.

If you want I can send a link to south India and Ceylon book also. TeenX808 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are you keep lying and misleading the sources.

"both colas volume 1 and Cholas does not mention"

https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.35382/page/186/mode/1up

Sastri has mentioned it in Colas volume 1. Check in page no. 186. Regarding "Cholas" Don't lie, can't you read it? what do you mean here, "Cholas does not mention" Chola empire or any book? I will answer for both. Cholas mentioned it in their plates and Cholas book by Sastry too mentioned it.

"either and the statement you mentioned isn’t even in the specific page. "

What are you saying here, statement I mentioned is in that page. Go and check. It's you who can't find the correct page and correct source in correct year.

"other historians such as Nilkantha sastri.. etc don’t even mention this event at all."

You previously said Sastry didn't mention this event and I proved you wrong as Sastry mentioned it. And you again said Sastry didn't mention it in Cholas volume 1 but I again proved you wrong that Sastry mentioned it in volume 1 in p.g no 186.

Sastry mentioned this event as it happened and he is definite about it. Pillay also definite about that event. Pilay pg-63 ‘ Sundara Chola Parantaka II (A. D. 957-73) and Ceyion: —Sundara Chola Parantaka II, a grandson of Parantaka I was involved in a struggle with Vira Pandya who declared his independence. In this move Vira Pandya was helped by Mahinda IV,the contemporary ruler of Ceylon, and in all probability a Ceylonese army had come to help Vira Pandya. But Sundara Chola succeeded in defeating the combined forces in two battles "

He said in "all probability" which means he is sure that it happened.

"You are the one which entered this so called invasion which isn’t even mentioned by most historians if you can’t provide definite sources stay away from editing or contact a admin to sought out."

Nope, it's you who removed this event first. I provided two definite source , if you want more I can provide. You should be stayed away from editing because you can't even find the correct source I mentioned and saying Nilakanda Sastry didn't mention it but he mentioned it twice in both volume 1 1935 and 1955 version. Ranithraj (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

சோழர் வரலாறு (History of Cholas)

by K.K PILLAY 1977 pg. 159.

https://archive.org/details/dli.jZY9lup2kZl6TuXGlZQdjZMdkJly.TVA_BOK_0000838/page/159/mode/1up

"இவன் சேவூர்ப் போரில் பாண்டியனை வென்றது கி.பி. 962 - ல் இருக்க வேண்டும் எனத் தெரிகிறது . சேவூர்ப் போர் நிகழ்ச்சிகள் ஆனைமங்கலச் செப்பேடு களில் சொல்லப்பட்டுள்ளன . இப்போரில் பாண்டியனுக்குத் துணைபுரியப் பெரும்படை ஒன்றை இலங்கை வேந்தனான நான்காம் மகிந்தன் அனுப்பியிருந்தான்"

Translate

""He is said to have defeated the Pandya king in the Battle of Sevur in 962 CE. The events of the Battle of Sevur are recorded in the Annamangalach Cheppedu inscriptions. In this battle, a large army was sent by the King of Sri Lanka, Mahinda IV, to support the Pandya king."

This is the third source I provided to prove this invasion. If you want more, I can give

4. Fourth Source : History Of Cholas By R. Manikkanar or RasaManikkanar 2013 Tamilvarachithurai https://archive.org/details/MEQm_history-of-cholas-by-r.-manikkanar-2013-tamilvarachithurai-tamil-anon/page/142/mode/1up Pg. 142 "சேவூரில்‌ நடந்த போருக்குப்‌ பின்‌, சோழர்‌ பக்கம்‌ நின்று போரிட்ட கொடும்பாளூர்ச்‌ சிற்றரசனான “பராந்தக சிறிய வேளார்‌” என்பவன்‌ பாண்டிய நாட்டிற்குள்‌ படையொடு சென்று பாண்டியனைக்‌ காட்டிற்குள்‌ புகுமாறு விரட்டினான்‌; வீர பாண்டியற்குத்‌ துணையாக வந்த இலங்கைப்‌ படைகளைத்‌ தாக்கிக்கொண்டே"

Translation "After the battle that took place in Sevur, "Paranthaka Chiriya Vellar," a small chieftain from Kodumpalur who stood with the Chola side, marched with his army into Pandya territory and drove the Pandya king deep into the forest. He continued to attack the Sri Lankan forces, who had come to assist the valiant Pandya."

Fifth source 5) India Ceylonese History Society And Culture by M. D. Raghvan pg -42 "the Cholas under Parantaka II (953-973 A.D.) again invaded Ceylon by way of reprisal, as the King of Ceylon, Mihindu IV (956-972 A.D.) had helped the Pandyans against the Cholas."

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.29968/page/n66/mode/1up?q=Parantaka He explained that invasion in which Parantaka II defeated the allied forces of Pandya and lanka.

6) Patrick Peebles History Of Sri Lanka 2006 pg 20 "The Colas extended their empire at the expense of the Pandyas and Sin-halese in the tenth century. Early in the century they occupied the Pandyan capital at Madurai, and the king took refuge in Sri Lanka. The Coļas retaliated for Sinhalese support for the Pandyas with at least three major invasions in the tenth century. During the last of these in 993, Mahinda V (982-1029) aban-doned Anuradhapura to the Coļas. He was captured in Rohaņa in 1017"

The explanation outlines that the Cholas invaded Lanka three times—under Parantaka I, Parantaka II, and Rajaraja I—primarily because the Lankan kings supported the Pandyas against them. This interference by the Sinhalese rulers in Chola-Pandya conflicts led the Chola rulers to retaliate with military invasions of Sri Lanka.

Ranithraj (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)