It has been a wonderful experience reading Kavirimainthan. (In fact, I had read it twice !!!)
KM has been fascinating for the following:
a) Venkat's style of story telling (it is almost identical to Kalki's style - and I believe you all would appreciate this once you read the same). This is amazing since I have read part of Venkat's book (Madurai) where his style of story telling is entirely different. (Venkat ovvoru kadhaikkum ovvoru avadhaaram eduppaar "POLA")
b) Venkat's style of characterisation (he has taken cue from PS and improvised with his own imagination); You start loving characters normally you don't like while reading PS. I do not go much into the detail as this will remove an element of suspense/surprise when you read the book.
c) Venkat is equally good in narrating all aspects like kaadhal, nagaichuvai, kindal, pormurai, arasiyal nigalvugal etc.,
d) In short, Venkat is transporting you to different time zone.
I personally felt last five/six chapters are masterpiece - in a sense that you could feel the writer's own feeling/involvement. (Once again I do not want to divulge the details).
EXCELLENT WORK VENKATESH. We are really proud of you.
Venkatesh Sir, (Clarify please) I happen to read one old history book on Chola dynasty. It states that after the death of Sundara Cholan, 'Uttamma cholan' ruled for 15 years followed by Rajaraja I. In that case at what age RajaRaja cholan occupied the throne (I have not read Kaverimainthan yet)
As per PS, Uthama was crowned when Sundara chola was alive.
As per KM, Uthama was forced to resign, or he would have been kicked out by Rajaraja. He got extra time, because the scriptures were to be rescued from Chdambaram temple. I hope I am right. Sampath
> As per PS, Uthama was crowned when Sundara chola was alive. > > As per KM, Uthama was forced to resign, or he would have been kicked out > by Rajaraja. He got extra time, because the scriptures were to be > rescued from Chdambaram temple.
my god ! where does km say anything about uthama quitting, ps portrays him as a reluctant king. km goes on to say its unfortunate that in these times two very capable men were born at the same time.
You have mentioned below that ".....As per KM (KaviriMainthan), Uthama was forced to resign, or he would have been kicked out by Rajaraja....."
We note Rajaraja Chola - 1 didnot succeed on the Chola throne - "after the death" of Uththama Chola - but while he was alive. Probably after a period of 16 years of rule, Uththama Chola himself in keeping with the good understanding between him and Rajaraja when the latter was the "uvaraja" under him for 16 years, would have given the throne on his own accord to Rajaraja Chola - 1 after this long period - in goodwill, but possibly was not forced to resign.
Because from the Thiruvaalankadu Copper Plates it is very clear the policy of Rajaraja in respect of his succession to Chola throne. It says that "....on realising the desire of Mathuranthahan (alias Uththama Chola)to the throne, he (Rajaraja)insisted that his Siriya thanthai should rule the Chola country, and as long he is there (on the throne), he will not even desire in mind the jewelled crown of Cholas....".
Hence it is clear it was Uththama Chola who with all goodwill gave the throne to Rajaraja - 1 and stepped down - and not forced down as mentioned. It was this goodwill the Uththama Chola had with Rajaraja untill the last, made Rajaraja - 1 to appoint his son namely Mathuranthahan Gandaraathiththan as a very high officer under him.
It also appears that Uththama Chola lived even thereafter (after A.D.985), as we find an inscription of Rajaraja Chola's "3rd year" at Thruppurambiyam in Thanjavur district (338 of 1927)which states ".... (a gift of a) silver pot by Udaiya Piraatiyaar (Sembiyan Mahadeviyaar alias Piranthahan Madevadigalaar) mother of Sri Kandan Mathuranthahan alias Uththama Chola "on behalf of her son" to god at Thiruppurambiyam...."
In the above it doesnot say "in memory of his son" but as "on behalf of his son". Hence we could infer that Uththama Chola lived at least upto A.D.988.
> > Because from the Thiruvaalankadu Copper Plates it is very clear the > policy of Rajaraja in respect of his succession to Chola throne. > It says that "....on realising the desire of Mathuranthahan (alias > Uththama Chola)to the throne, he (Rajaraja)insisted that his Siriya > thanthai should rule the Chola country, and as long he is there (on > the throne), he will not even desire in mind the jewelled crown of > Cholas....".
(V. 69.) (Though) requested by the subjects (to occupy the Chola throne), in order to destroy the persistently blinding darkness of the powerful Kali (age), Arunmolivarman who understood the essence of royal conduct, desired not the kingdom for himself even in (his) mind, while his paternal uncle coveted his (i.e., Arunmolivarman's) dominions.
It is the use of the words Covet ( as far as Uttama) and desire ( by AMV) - which leads many to speculate on the characterisation of Uttama. Kalki tried to make up for this by switching senden amdudhan for uttama.
> > We note Rajaraja Chola - 1 didnot succeed on the Chola throne - "after > the death" of Uththama Chola - but while he was alive. Probably after > a period of 16 years of rule, Uththama Chola himself in keeping with > the good understanding between him and Rajaraja when the latter was > the "uvaraja" under him for 16 years, would have given the throne on > his own accord to Rajaraja Chola - 1 after this long period - in > goodwill, but possibly was not forced to resign.
hi sirs,
Quoting KAN again.
"Having noticed by the marks (on his body) that Arulmozhi was the very Vishnu, the protector of the three worlds, descended on earth, [Uttama] installed him in the position of yuvaraja (heir apparent) and himself bore the burden of ruling the earthÂ…"
Also is there any proof that Mathurandhakan gandaraaththan was the son of uttama other than the inference from his name/tile for below statement:
It was this goodwill the Uththama Chola had with Rajaraja untill the last, made Rajaraja - 1 to appoint his son namely Mathuranthahan Gandaraathiththan as a very high officer under him.
It is rather surprising to note that Rajaraja I having Vishnu marks ob his body happens to be a staunch Saivite patnernising Siva temples (though he respected other faiths) Is it not?? nbala