Speaking about Mathuranthaka - we should make a clear cut distinction between historical Mathuranthaka Uttama Chozha and the Senthan amudhan-turned-mathuranthaka of PS.
Senthan amudhan is a fictional character - personification of soft hearted men of great character and ideals. He is also human and down to earth - he says he will prefer poonguzhali over sivabhakthi loka :-).
But I'm not here to discuss Senthan amudhan in detail. My interest is with Mathuranthaka Uttama Chola - as history portrys him and the facts that go with or contradict what is said in PS about that guy.
First and foremost point of interest is that initially senthan amudhan was not intented to be converted to Mathuranthaka by Kalki. The reasons for this sudden change of mind on Kalki's side - in itself - is a point of great debade. But I'll not go into it. All I'd like to say here is the exact incident as portrayed by Kalki's son Mr.Rajendran:
One day Kalki was doing Yogasana - every day morning he had the habit of doing that. (Remember that Yogacharya Sundaram's widely acclaimed series on Yoga featured as a series in Kalki - in those days.) And it was boy Rajendran's duty - every day - to count numbers for his father when he was doing Sirasasanam - a posture of standing upside down!
On the given day - after recovering from asana posture - Kalki suddenly asked the boy : Senthan Amudhanaye Raja Aaki vittal enna ? (Why not make Sendhan Amudhan a king ?)
Of course, Kalki should have thought about this afterwords also - before coming to a conclusion. But in my own humble opinion, the historical mathuranthaka looks more like the earlier mathuranthaka than the pious Senthan amudhan !
Any evidences ? Well, I have more than one !
Before looking at how Mathuranthaka took the throne, it is important to consider how Aditya was recognized as the heir apparent by Sundara chola.
As PS portrays, since mathurantaka was too small when his father (Gandaraditya) and uncle (Arinjaya) died - sundara chola came to throne. But once mathuranthaka came to age, Sundara chola - instead of recognizing him as the next king - makes his own son as the heir apparent.
We do not know the reasons behind this - and are not in a position to accept what kalki says - that Paranthaka/ Gandaraditya wished Sundara chola and his heirs to continue to claim the chola throne. We do not have any evidence to this.
Once good reason could be that Aditya was a great warrior for his age and was - as against what kalki portrays - a pious and intelligent son as well. We will take a look at Aditya in detail later - but for now, let us assume that Aditya was able to surpass Mathurantaka by his own valour, which seems to be the most probable conclusion against the available evidence.
No doubt, there were a group of people in the kingdom as well as around Mathuranthaka - who were revolting against this and perhaps Mathuranthaka himself was not happy with this! (as vividly portrayed in PS) As aditya became more and more famous - installing himself deeper and deeper into the throne - Mathuranthaka may have visualized a may day for him and his generations to come. Moreover, he might have felt that this was wrong - morally and ethically.
Sundara should have tried to convice him - saying that a man like Aditya alone can save the country against rising enemy power all around the empire. It is absolutely possible that our man was not convinced about all this and - in the company of some "dangerous fellows" - decided to play his dice.
Let us see the historic evidences that stand for and against the theory that Mathuranthaka indeed conspired to kill Aditya. To do this effectively, we need to look at what happened AFTER aditya's killing as well as the reign of Uttama chola as a whole.
Evidence 1 : The very first evidence that throws some light into this is the Thiruvalangadu plates. They say pretty clearly that the country men wanted to bring Arumozhi as the next prince but Arumozhi declined - saying that AS LONG AS HIS UNCLE UTTAMA CHOZHA WISHES - HE WILL NOT CONSIDER - EVEN MENTALLY ABOUT SUCEEDING THE CHOZHA THRONE.
You can view this in different angles. One view - taken by T.V.Sadasiva pandarathar - a noted historian - is that Arumozhi had so much respect in his uncle that he procalimed this statment.
If you read Kalki's conclusion to PS - you will understand that the whole story is based on this sacrifice of Arumozhi and that is why Part 5 is aptly named THIYAGA CHIGARAM (Pinnacle of sacrifice). Thus, Kalki has accepted T.V.P's conclusions as a whole.
But there is also another angle - which we can consider. The most important thing that is visible from Thiruvalangadu inscriptions is that UTTAMA DID WISH FOR THE THRONE. Thus, in order to avoid a serious domestic conflict - Arumozhi decided to give room for his uncle's wishes.
It is absolutely possible that the power camps were divided in this issue - as PS succintly portrays - and since the overall chola empire was under the threat of disintegration - Arumozhi gave way for Uttama and decided to move his coins cautiously - as Uttama did.
Arumozhi had his own plans in giving up the chola throne tentatively - in the light of domestic confusions and the death of crown prince.
I'll try substantiate this as we go along.
Evidence 2 : Pandyas had been the sworne enemies of cholas since time immemorial. We are all aware that bitter battles were faught between the two throughout the later Chola regime. Vijayala / Aditya, Paranthaka, Gandaradhitya (?) - and ofcourse, Paranthaka II (Sundara chola) - all had to fight Pandya revolt at some point of their time.
In fact Paranthaka had to fight more than once - to supress Pandya king Veera Pandiya. Once such war was faught in sevur - in which veera pandiyan lost his life.
If you go a bit further - you'll find that Rajaraja the great began his historic conquest first from Pandya country (though Kandalur Salai battle with cheras is considered the first - Rajarja had to first cross the pandya empire even to reach Kandhalur. Thus, he had to supress Amarabhujanga, the then pandyan emperor - before proceeding to chera country).
My simple question is : WHY THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO PANDYA REVOLT DURING UTTAMA'S TIME - FOR 15 LONG YEARS?
It is evident that Pandyas were alive and well during this period - because Rajaraja's first battle with them and subsequent battles with cheras (in which Pandyas obviously alighned with cheras to overcome chola power) - were neverthless easy victories. Thus we ca