It is interesting that Ghazni Muhammed and Rajendra Chola were present in India at the same time, I am curious to know of any reason why both did not meet.
More interestingly, the territories seem to be clearly not criss crossing on their lines.
Did they avoid by purpose ?
Rajendra did not take Delhi, which was possibly a mistake, most of the Northern wealth was ripped by Ghazni , Gori, Slave Dynasty and Afgani sultans, not to mention the large scale Massacres by Taimur and so on.
Any reasons why our guys never bothered to venture so far?
Good topic Ravi. I remember Madan also mentioned this in his "Vandharkal Vendrarkal" book when talking about Ghazni. I am also curious to know what made them not to meet.
Nice title.. but it will be so when you look from the indian perspective (that means loser's perspective). But looking from the other side, it will be termed as "Great Victory".
But I love that book as it was the book which gave me a new dimension in reading history.
ghazni and ghori were raiders. slave dynasty, khiljis and tuklaks followed but as rulers.
during time of khiljis came the first southern invasion and under the tuklaks the second. both were raiding trips. however the tugluk invasion they left behind a garrison and madurai sultanate was formed. war itself is cruel. how can there be a soft war.
Yes all is clear on these, my question in essence was about RJC, any inscriptions where he faced off with the Gazni raider or he crossed the Northern border of Chalukyas into the Rajput territories...
As for as I know (from the little reading I did on history), Ghazni invaded from north on the west side of north india and Rajendra invaded middle of north india from the south. Their route ran in parallel atleast for 1000 miles. If it happened on the same time, there should be something which stopped both of them to meet each other. Not sure what was in their minds.
I don't think logistics would be an issue, as they already travelled so much and it was just taking a left turn and travelling for another 500 miles. :)) Any history scholars here can help me understand...
Any KAN documents that say otherwise ? How did that story on RJC's friendship with Prithviraj's ancestors come by.
I still rue the fact that our guys did not sit on the Delhi throne, that would have taken us in history books across the globe... RJC appadi panathinale ennamo... ippo veraikkum we have not had a PM from TN...
With the long discussion with S.ramachandran our friend epigraphist at chrompet of chennai on delhi's old name compare with idaikali based on his research of dehleshwar and idaikaliswar at thirkovilur region the name changed from idaikaliswar to dehleswar.
according to Mr.S.Ramachnadran Indraprastam is the name of of old dehlhi is the entry point for the outsider in the ancient days.
we have to research Proto Dravida (tamil )connections with dehli seriously.
ref
Human habitation was probably present in and around Delhi during the second millennium BC and before,[19] and continuous inhabitation has been evidenced since at least the 6th century BC.[4] The city is believed to be the site of Indraprastha, legendary capital of the Pandavas in the Indian epic Mahabharata.[12] Settlements grew from the time of the Mauryan Empire (c. 300 BC).[19] Remains of seven major cities have been discovered in Delhi. The Tomara dynasty founded the city of Lal Kot in 736 AD. The Chauhan Rajputs of Ajmer conquered Lal Kot in 1180 AD and renamed it Qila Rai Pithora. The Chauhan king Prithviraj III was defeated in 1192 by the Afghan Muhammad Ghori.[12] In 1206, Qutb-ud-din Aybak, the first ruler of the Slave Dynasty established the Delhi Sultanate. Qutb-ud-din started the construction the Qutub Minar and Quwwat-al-Islam (might of Islam), the earliest extant mosque in India.[12][20] After the fall of the Slave dynasty, a succession of Turkic and Afghan dynasties, the Khilji dynasty, the Tughluq dynasty, the Sayyid dynasty and the Lodhi dynasty held power in the late medieval period, and built a sequence of forts and townships that are part of the seven cities of Delhi.[21] In 1398, Timur Lenk invaded India on the pretext that the Muslim sultans of Delhi were too lenient towards their Hindu subjects. Timur entered Delhi and the city was sacked, destroyed, and left in ruins.[22] Delhi was a major centre of Sufism during the Sultanate period.[23] In 1526, Zahiruddin Babur defeated the last Lodhi sultan in the First Battle of Panipat and founded the Mughal Empire that ruled from Delhi, Agra and Lahore.[12]
The Mughal Empire ruled northern India for more than three centuries, with a sixteen-year hiatus during the reign of Sher Shah Suri from 1540 to 1556.[24] During 15531556, Hemu Vikramaditya acceded to the throne of Delhi by defeating forces of Mughal Emperor Akbar at Agra and Delhi. However, the Mughals reestablished their rule after Akbar's army defeated Hemu during the Second Battle of Panipat.[25][26][27] Shah Jahan built the seventh city of Delhi that bears his name (Shahjahanabad), and is more commonly known as the "Old City" or "Old Delhi". The old city served as the capital of the Mughal Empire from 1638. After 1680, the Mughal Empire's influence declined rapidly as the Hindu Marathas rose to prominence.[28] A weakened Mughal Empire lost the Battle of Karnal following which the victorious forces of Nader Shah invaded and looted Delhi, carrying away many treasures, including the Peacock Throne.[29] A treaty signed in 1752 made Marathas the protector of the Mughal throne at Delhi.[30] In 1761, after the Marathas lost the third battle of Panipat, Delhi was raided by Ahmed Shah Abdali. In 1803, the forces of British East India Company overran the Maratha forces near Delhi and ended the Mughal rule over the city.[31 soure website
I have read in Mr. Madan's (Aanatha vekadan fame) "Vantharkal Vendrarkal" in which he said that both Gajini and Rajendran were wandered with their troops in north India one and the same time. But i remember he said that Gujini in north to Ganga and rajendran in south of Ganga. And to cross the mighty Ganga would be the reason for not the both engaged in battle.
// . But i remember he said that Gujini in north to Ganga and rajendran in south of Ganga. //
If I remember correctly, He said that "at the time Ghajini was invading india from north to Gujarath (somnathpuram), Rajendra cholan was invading north india through the other route to Ganges". I am sure he has not talked about these two routes separated by Ganges. I have the book, let me pull the text once I go home.
I do agree with your comment. Here is the originial text from "Vandharkar Vendraarkal":
Part of Chapter 3:
வடமேற்கில் தொடர்ந்து கஜினி படையெடுத்துக் கொண்டிருந்த அதே நேரத்தில்தான் ஒரு மாவீரன் இந்தியாவின் தெற்குப் பகுதியிலிருந்து ஒரு பெரும் படையுடன் கிளம்பி வடக்கு நோக்கி வந்து சேர்ந்தான். அவனுடைய வீரர்களை யாராலும் எதிர்த்து நிற்க முடியவில்லை. இன்றைய ஹைதராபாத், ஒரிஸ்ஸா, வங்காளம்... இல்லா நாடுகளும் அந்த மன்னன் வீரத்தின்முன் மண்டியிட்டன. கங்கைநதி நீரைக் குடங்களில் நிரப்பி, தான் வெற்றிகண்ட மன்னர்களின் தலை மீது வைத்துத் தன் ஊருக்குத் திரும்பினான் அந்த மன்னன். அந்த மாவீரன்தான் தமிழகத்தை ஆண்ட ராஜேந்திர சோழன்.
இந்தியாவின் வடமேற்கே கஜினி படையெடுத்து வந்திருக்கும் விஷயத்தை நிச்சயம் ஒற்றர்கள் ராஜேந்திர சோழனிடம் சொல்லாமல் இருந்திருக்க மாட்டார்கள். ஆனால், ராஜேந்திர சோழனின் விருப்பம் கடற்படையுடன் சென்று மலேயா, சுமந்திராவைக் கைப்பற்ற வேண்டும் என்பதாக இருந்தது.
now i understood the routes of Rejendran and Gajini.( but since Madan use the words "Gangaiye kadanthu" i give such a opinion). Good.Let us leave the direction. Mr. Madan would have used some valid info to wirte the incident. we have to include those to get clear picture whether both fought at war or not. Sorry one of my friend took away the book and didnt returned it as usual!!!. It may have bibilography. thanks to Mr Venkat to reproduce the text.