Gandaraditya
| Gandaraditha Chola I கண்டராதித்ய சோழன் (Kaṇṭarātitya) |
|
|---|---|
| Rajakesari | |
| Reign | 950–956 CE |
| Predecessor | Parantaka I |
| Successor | Arinjaya |
| Born | Unknown |
| Died | 956 CE |
| Queen | Sembiyan Madeviyar |
| Issue | Madhurantaka |
| Father | Parantaka I |
Gandaraditha Chola (Tamil: கண்டராதித்ய சோழன்) succeeded his father Parantaka I and became the Chola king c. 955 CE.
From the death of Parantaka I, to the accession of Rajaraja I in 985 CE, Chola history is obscure. During this period of 30 years there were five princes who must have occupied the throne. There are several theories surrounding the rapid ascension to the Chola throne.
One was that there were internal feuds among the different members of the royal family. The other is that the effects of the Rashtrakuta invasion, under Krishna III and his brother-in-law Ganga Butuga, and the defeat of the Chola army at Takkolam resulting in the death of heir-apparent Rajaditya Chola (the first in line to the throne - "aanai mael thunjiya devar") must have brought large-scale disorder in the kingdom.
The second theory has more merit since the sons of Parantaka I (specifically Gandaraditya and Arinjaya) must have also fought along with their brother, Rajaditya in that epic battle and must have been variously injured and died rapidly. Thus, Parantaka I was forced to get his grandson Sundara Chola (the son of Arinjaya and probably the oldest surviving prince) to be the heir-apparent.
As noted earlier, the eldest son of Parantaka I, prince Rajaditya lost his life in the battle of Takkolam (c. 949 CE). Takkalom is identified with the area around present day Arakonam in the North Arcot district. Parantaka I must have made his second son Gandaraditya as heir apparent.
Gandaraditya was a reluctant monarch and focussed more on religious work and not on empire building. The Tondaimandalam continued to be occupied by the Rashtrakutas and Gandaratitya did not seem to have made any attempt to retrieve it. It is not clear if this is because he was uninterested in war or that he was assimilating his position south of the Paalar River and cutting his losses to keep Eelam (which was fast slipping out of Chola control) and to keep a resurgent Pandya Kingdom at bay.
For the time being, the martial Chola power seemed to have been toned down but trade (especially maritime) continued to flourish. There are only very few inscriptions to be found that could be directly attributed to him and this may be because earlier inscriptions were consciously deleted by later Uttama Chola who undertook the task of converting South Indian temples into granite from brick-and-mortar under the "Kalpani" scheme. The conscious decision by Uttama Chola is mentioned in his inscriptions at Kanchipuram.
...
Wikipedia