Talk:Satyashraya

Comments
Sir,

With reference to the follwing parts of the article on Satyashraya:

''But Satyashraya was able to defeat Raja Raja Chola and the crown prince Rajendra Chola when they invaded parts of Karnataka. He also subdued the Shilahara king Aparijitha ruler of North Konkana.

Seeing increased interference of Cholas in Vengi, Satyasraya invaded Vengi in 1006.

[edit] Wars with the Cholas The Cholas responded with a two-pronged attack on the Vengi kingdom and on the Western Chalukya territory itself. The Chola armies were led by Rajendra Chola I. Rajendra marched up to Donur near Kudalasangama and Unakal near Hubli and plundered the entire county, slaughtering women, men and children and threatening the Chalukya capital Manyakheta. Satyasrya was thus compelled to withdraw from Vengi and retreat to his kingdom in the western Deccan.

After many bloody battles, Satyasrya managed to push back the Chola advance to the banks of the river Tungabhadra.''

The introduction and conclusion of the previous article on Tailapa II says that Satyasraya continued the aggressive policies of his father Tailapa II. But here this is followed by the claim of Satyashraya defeating both Raja Raja I and Rajendra Chola. In contrast the page on Raja Raja I says that he deputed his son Rajendra Chola to this war. So Satyashraya, if at all, could not have defeated both the Cholas. In any case after being anointed the Prince, it was Rajendra who led the Cholas in all their wars and after the coronation of his own son Rajadhiraja, Rajendra in the tradition of his father stopped participating directly in wars. Another manipulation that is clearly visible here is that Satyashraya is described as having won against the Cholas with the Chola Prince Rajendra I being described in very derisive and insulting terms and shown as one plundering the entire country, slaughtering women and children, with the actual truth emerging only in the end with the lines 'and threatening the Chalukya capital Manyakheta'. Which has to mean not a victory for Satyashraya but a resounding and humiliating defeat for him at the hands of the Chola forces. On the one hand Satyashraya is supposed to have carried forward the aggressive policies of his father and on the other (probably a characteristic of his so-called aggression) is that his capital Manyakheta was threatened. If this is not contradiction and resorting to absolute overturning of facts, turning facts into fiction, truth into lies, then what is? The actual winner of the war who sacked the Chalukya kingdom is described as a looter and plunderer with not even a cursory word being contributed, that Satyashraya was defeated in his war against Cholas led by Rajendra I. Besides, it is not even brought out that it was Rajendra as opposed to Satyashraya who was actually aggressive and valorous and Satyashraya could not even properly defend his capital. Neither could he launch any worthwhile aggression against the Cholas because he was routed at Vengi also. Both Rajendra and Raja Raja I employed the tactic of fighting the Chalukyas on two fronts at the same time and on each such occasion the Chola armies came up trumps with the Chalukyas coming up extremely short in terms of the result of war. Not just Raja Raja and Rajendra, Sir, this continued even during the times of Rajadhiraja, his successor Rajendra II and even Rajendra II's successor, Virarajendra. The last named, though not spoken off in the same terms as Raja Raja, Rajendra I or even Rajadhiraja too was an achievement-heavy personality, who first defeated Vikramaditya VI (eulogized as a great king amoong Chalukyas) after routing him from Kanchi and Gangaikondacholapuram, was magnanimous enough to give the hand of his daughter to the latter. Even in the page on Somesvara I, it is written that 'he may have conquered Kanchi'.

Sir, in the light of the above glaring discrepancies and deliberate errors, I would like to further point out that Chalukya kings right from the time of Tailapa II all the way down till Vikramaditya VI never won any war against the Cholas, they also did not occupy an inch of Chola territory or Tamil country excepting for the loss of Vengi during the time of Kulothunga I in 1118 (after the loss of Gangavadi/Talakaud to the Hoysalas in 1116). This, I may add, Sir was followed by Vikrama Chola reclaiming Vengi as soon as 1126 and not just that this was preceded in fact, by Vikrama Chola occupying parts of Gangavadi even from the Hoysalas (something that is not acknowledged even in the Vikrama Chola or Hoysala pages, but this is the trend in Wikipedia pages and it has become something which is (irritatingly, to say the least) only to be expected.

The truth behind this particular war would only reinforce the fact that neither Raja Raja I and Rajendra Chola I every lost a war in their lifetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srirangam99 (talk • contribs)

Comments 2
Sir,

There are several intended and deliberate inaccuracies in the page on Satyashraya which are excerpted as under:

The next king Satyashraya is again described as having won victories against Rajendra and Raja Raja I. Let me inform you that NEVER in the history of the Chalukya and Chola Empire was a war between these two sides EVER FOUGHT IN CHOLA TERRITORY. WARS WERE ALWAYS FOUGHT IN DESTINATIONS LIKE KOPPAL, KUDALA SANGAMA, VIJAYAWADA (PART OF EASTERN CHALUKYA TERRITORY) AND OTHER PARTS OF KARNATAKA, BUT NEVER WITHIN ANY AREA CONTROLLED BY THE CHOLAS. With that being the case, what is the proof that Satyashraya defeated both Rajendra Chola and Raja Raja Chola I? It is also a fact in Chola history that after becoming the Yuvaraja Rajendra Chola was the one who participated in all wars for the Cholas with Raja Raja I only deputing his son to wars. That is the reason the statement of Satyashraya defeating Raja Raja I and Rajendra Chola I is absolutely concocted and false.

You can consult any number of historians and they will all tell you Raja Raja I, Rajendra I, Ashoka, Samudra Gupta and Narasimha Varman never lost any wars in their life.

Also in the page on Satyashraya, how shamelessly the Cholas have been described: See for yourself:

Rajendra marched up to Donur near Kudalasangama and Unakal near Hubli and plundered the entire county, slaughtering women, men and children and threatening the Chalukya capital Manyakheta. Satyasrya was thus compelled to withdraw from Vengi and retreat to his kingdom in the western Deccan.

LET ME SAY IN CLEAR TERMS: NEVER IN HISTORY HAVE RAJA RAJA, RAJENDRA CHOLA I EVER BEEN KNOWN TO ATTACK WOMEN AND CHILDREN, AND THE ONLY MEN THEY ATTACKED were soldiers and their adversaries. WHILE I SHARE YOUR DESIRE THAT ONLY THE CORRECT INFORMATION ABOUT CHALUKYAS SHOULD BE WRITTEN, IT DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO ALSO WRITE ABOUT THEIR RIVALS OR ENEMIES ALSO IN DESPICABLY DEROGATORY TERMS. Please take time and read about the Chola country and society given in your own Wikipedia pages, including status of women etc. which will prove how wrong is their description of attacking women and children. I am sure you will advice the concerned to delete those remarks against Chola Kings also.

In a blatant and desperate attempt to cloud actual facts with fiction It is described that Rajendra marched up to Donur, Unakal and Kudala Sangama while at the same time trying to show the brave Cholas in poor light by showing the leader of their army, crown prince Rajendra I as one who slaughtered women, men and children. But the same biased historians committed a mistake side by side. They added further that Rajendra threatened their capital Manyakheta.

Sir, I would like to ask you only one question: How could a killer and slaughterer of men, women and children also have the capacity threaten the Chalukyan capital, especially when their King Satyashraya was supposed to have carried forward the aggressive policies of his father Tailapa-II? That means not only he was an aggressive King but his army was equally valorous. Then how come the Cholas led by Rajendra would march all the way from their then capital Tanjore and reach Manyakheta through Kudala Sangama and Hubli in middle and South Karnataka through the Ganga country. Did the Chola army massacre children, men and women on the way too in Ganga country? Was the extremely valorous Chalukya army merely watching like innocent bystanders when the so-called massacre of innocents was being committed by the Chola army? Sir, in the absence of any light being thrown on these aspects, it would be patently wrong to allow continuation of this article in this form and hence the lines describing Rajendra I and his army as murderer of men, women and children should be deleted immediately, mainly because there are many, many facts pointing to the contrary.

In fact, Sir, you can physically verify that during the more than 100 year rule of the Cholas over the Karnataka provinces of Nulambavadi, Gangavadi, Kadambavadi etc. many Dravidian temples were built from the times of Raja Raja I, Rajendra, Rajadhiraja, Rajendra II, Vira Rajendra, Kulothunga I and his son Vikrama Chola which can be verified with the Archaeological Survey of India.That being the case, the areas of Karnataka till the time they were under Chola occupation were never known for their disturbance or rebellions or quelling of the same, as was the case with Pandya territories under Chola rule which saw consistent rebellions and many quellings right up to the time of Kulothunga-II and Kulothunga-III also. These cultural achievements could not have been possible had the Cholas been murderers of men, women and children as is sought out to be made out in these pages with the aim of portraying Chalukya kings as great while making out the Cholas and portraying them as looters and killers. (It is of course, relevant to point out here - though the same is not relevant to the topic on Satyashraya - that one of the later Kings Somesvara I - in fact sent his son Vikramaditya VI to sack Kanchi and the then Chola capital Gangaikondacholapuram - but was routed and chased all the way from the Chola capital to Kanchi, to Kudalasangama all the way up to Manyakheta which proves that it is not the Cholas who were raiders and looters but this quality actually belonged to the Chalukya kings who without trying to confront the valour of the Chola Kings tried to win them over by making unannounced attacks on their territory and capital only to be humiliated time after time - you can read your own wikipedia history pages of Satyashraya, Jayasimha, Vinayaditya, Somesvara-I and Vikramaditya VI for absolute clarity on the character of the Cholas and the Chalukyas.

The lack of character of the Chalukyas was borne out further by the fact that Somesvara I challenged Vira Rajendra for a war at Kudala Sangama but later could not muster up the much-needed courage to march up to the designated place and face the Cholas. This shameful episode is backed up in the page on Somesvara I with the lame excuse that Somesvara I was indisposed and hence could not take the field. Could he even not have intimated his adversaries on this and fixed another day for war???? There are no answers or enquiries with regard to this aspect. In all probability Somesvara I was shamed by his own subjects including his wife which caused him to commit suicide on the banks of a river(which goes completely against description of Somesvara I as one who consolidated his empire and safeguarded it against the Cholas - (not that the Cholas were overkeen to occupy Western Chalukya territories, with the main cause of conflict between the Western Chalukyas and Cholas being that the marital alliance betweent he Eastern Chalukyas and the Cholas was always resented by the WEstern Chalukyas who constantly interfered in the affiars in Vengi by trying to install their own puppet in Eastern Chalukya kingdom. This was the basic reason of war between the Cholas and Western Chalukyas).

To sum it up, Sir, the fact that Rajendra I stood at the gates of Manyakheta (threatening the Chalukya capital) was because he was a brave, valorous and able commander of men and armies and by backing his ability he overcame all opposition in war and marched freely inside the enemy territory. This simple fact cannot be digested by some historians with malice, regional outlook and complete prejudice towards the Cholas vis-a-vis the Chalukyas, their favoured rulers and have therefore, gone on by completely bull-dozing over actual facts and replacing them with absolute lies, innuendos and false information and that too with complete impunity.

I would like to add Sir, that it was purely on the strength of their valour, capacity for waging a war and that too successfully, that the Cholas repeatedly marched up to the Chalukyan capital, that is an unmistakeable conclusion one would reach after reading and absorbing the fact of Rajendra I reaching deep into the Chalukya country with his army and threatening the Chalukyan capital,Manyakheta.

The above episode clearly proves the capacity of both Rajendra and the Chola army to penetrate deep into enemy territory. How many attacks did Chalukya Kings lead into Chola territory? They have nothing to show except the night attack and looting of Gangaikondacholapuram by Vikramaditya VI on the orders of Somesvara I during the time of Virarajendra, for which the Chola army not only routed them from their territories but also led the battle right in the heart of the Chalukya territory. No doubt the jingoists, not wanting to digest what actually is the truth are resorting to such cowardly and manipulative tactics and especially misrepresentation of facts as describing the greatest Chola kings as looters and killers of women and children. It would have been understandable had kings like Kulothunga II or Kulothunga III, one of whom was a known persecutor of Vaishnavites, been portrayed in poor light, but portraying Raja Raja I and Rajendra I as losers and looters is, I am sure you will agree, absolutely and totally unacceptable.

In view of the glaring inaccuracies and deliberate misrepresentation of facts, which is there fore all to see, Sir, I therefore, request that these objectionable, unfounded lies about Rajendra I killing men and children in Chalukya territory be deleted. I eagerly await your positive reply upholding the cause of truth and impartiality.

Srirangam99 (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Will study
I will study Aadal's citations that were lost in my previous revert and see if they are valid. I have that book, so I can verify that part.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at page 181 citations provided by Aadal and do see any discussion on Satyasraya or Raja Raja Chola. The discussion on that page is about 13th century Cholas, by then a minor power.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)