Sharmalan Thevar: 2024

In recent times, an alarming narrative has emerged within the Malaysian blogosphere, suggesting a historical event that appears to be a misinterpretation or perhaps a deliberate misinformation campaign.

The claim revolves around a so called Malay prince named Manabharana from Srivijaya, purportedly attacking and conquering the Chola kingdom. This misleading story has gained traction and is spreading like wildfire across various social media platforms. The need to address and rectify such inaccuracies is crucial not only for the sake of historical accuracy but also for fostering a responsible and informed online community.

To delve into the matter, it is essential to clarify that historical records reveal the existence of multiple individuals named Manabharana throughout history. However, a nuanced understanding reveals that all these figures were Tamils (Damila) hailing from the Pandya kingdom, with references to their exploits documented in Tamil inscriptions and Sri Lankan chronicles. Remarkably, there is an absence of any historical records in Malaysia that would substantiate the claim of a Malay prince named Manabharana attacking the Chola kingdom.

The title "Manabharana" typically denotes a familial connection to the Pandyan royal lineage, often bestowed upon sons within the Pandyan dynasty. It is crucial to acknowledge that the Manabharana associated with the attack on the Chola country, earning the epithet "Cholakulantaka" (he who destroyed the Chola family), was indeed a Pandyan king. Contrary to the circulating narrative, this historical figure is not a Malay prince.

Similarly, it is worth mentioning that Kulothunga Chola I (1070-1120 AD) gave his princess Chudamali in marriage to prince Manabharana. This Manabharana was also known as Sri Virabahudevar or Pandiyanar Virapperumal. This Manabharana was the son of Jatavarman Srivallabha Pandya and princess Mitta, the younger sister of Sri Lankan king Vijayabahu (1055-1111 AD). (refer to page 227 below)

To further bolster this clarification, references from inscriptions have been attached, underscoring the importance of relying on authentic historical documents rather than perpetuating unfounded claims. The dissemination of inaccurate historical information not only distorts the understanding of the past but also has far-reaching consequences in shaping perceptions and narratives.

In a globalized and interconnected world, it is imperative to approach historical accounts with discernment and to resist the temptation to propagate misinformation, as it can contribute to the erosion of accurate historical knowledge and the promotion of cultural misunderstandings.

By emphasizing the importance of accuracy and critical thinking, we can collectively work towards fostering a more informed and responsible discourse in both online and offline spaces.

12th century inscription of the Ranganathasvamy Temple, Srirangam, makes reference to one Manabharana who lived earlier. He destroyed the Cholas (epithet Cholakulantaka) but this Manabharana is not a Malay from Sri Vijaya. He is a Tamil from Pandya kingdom.

Epigraphica Indica Vol XXXVIII (January 1969) by Archaeological Survey of India

Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, Volume 1 By G.P. Malalasekera

Another Manabharana, also a Pandya. This is from South Indian Inscriptions, Volume III.

IV.- Inscriptions at Manimangalam

No. 29.- On the outside of the east wall of the inner prakara of the Rajagopala-Perumal temple

Finally, Rajendra dispatched an army to Ceylon, where the Kalinga king Vira-Salamegan was decapitated and the two sons of the Ceylon king Manabharanan were taken prisoners. Another Vira-Salamegan, who is stated to have migrated to Ceylon from Kanyakubja, had been killed by Rajendra’s predecessor Rajadhiraja.[11] The same Chola king had decapitated another Manabharana, who was, however, a Pandya king and not a king of Ceylon.[12] The Mahavamsa mentions two princes of the name Manabharana, and two others of the name Kittisirimegha. Manabharana I.[13] and Kittisirimegha I. were nephews and sons-in-law of the Ceylon king Vijayabahu I. (chapter lix. Verses 42 and 44). His queen Tilokasundari was a princess of Kalinga (ibid. verse 29 f.).[14] Manabharanan and Vira-Salamegan in the subjoined inscription might correspond to Manabharana and Kittisirimegha in the Mahavamsa, and the reason why Vira-Salamegan is styled a Kalinga king in the inscription might be thefact that his mother-in-law was a Kalinga princess according to the Mahavamsa. On the other hand king Vijayabahu I. is supposed to have reigned from A.D. 1065 to 1120, and Vikkamabahu I. in whose time Manabharana I. and Kittisirimegha I. usurped the government of Ceylon, from A.D. 1121 to 1142, while Rajendra and Virarajendra I. have to be accommodated between A.D. 1050 and 1070.[15] Consequently, Manabharana and Vira-Salamegan in the inscription must be distinct from, and prior to, Manabharana I. and Kittisirimegha I. in the Mahavamsa. But, as I have previously stated (p. 39 above), the conquest of Ceylon by Rajendra is established by the existence of an inscription of his in that island.

Ariyalur and Udaiyarpalayam are now taluks under the larger present day Ariyalur district.

In his book "The Heirs of Vijayanagara: Court Politics in Early-Modern South India", author and researcher Lennart Bes of Radboud University Nijmegen states that the Kallar polygar of Ariyalur may have been the son-in-law of the Kallar polygar of Udaiyarpalayam (page 311). This is according to a Dutch source from the late 1670s; NA, VOC, no. 1454, f. 1015; no. 1756, f. 1219v: reports of local VOC envoys to Tanjavur and Ramnad, August 1688, October 1708.

The zamins (earlier palayam) of Ariyalur and Udaiyarpalayam were ruled continously by Kallar polygars until the year 1765 as confirmed by Lewis Moore (see end of article). Both Ariyalur and Udaiyarpalayam were attacked by the combined forces of Nawab and British. After the attack, the Kallar polygars and their families were disposed of their rights and properties. They took refuge in Tanjore (Tanjavur) and later Mysore.

They were attacked because both Kallar polygars of Ariyalur and Udaiyarpalayam, together with the Reddy polygar of Turaiyur, refused to pay tribute to the Nawab . In 1780, with the help of Hyder Ali of Mysore, they recaptured both Ariyalur and Udaiyarpalayam. However, this was only temporary.

After 1783, both these polygars were imprisonned by the British in Trichy for not paying tribute. Following this, the zamins were taken over by the servants of the zamin and the servants of the Nawab. Although the Kallar polygars were allowed to return, they were imprisoned again in 1790.

Both zamins were then placed under the management of the Nawab in 1798. This continued until the British took over in 1801. The zamins were later sold by the British to few proprietors.

Rabindranath Tagore mentioned that Ariyalur formerly belonged to a Kallar zamindar in his book The Modern Review Volume 35 No.1 (January 1924).

The present families of both zamins are not the actual descendants of the Kallars who once ruled and later disposed by the British. They are actually descendants of the proprietors who bought the zamin properties from the British. As such, they are not of royal ancestry.

Full evidence pertaining to Ariyalur and Udaiyarpalayam, is provided by Lewis Moore, Acting Head Assistant to the Collector and Magistrate of Trichinopoly in his book Trichinopoly District in The Presidency of Madras. The book was published in 1878.

I have attached the supporting pages below.