SSince last week, much ink has been splattered on Sengol, which some online sources describe as a “Chola-era” scepter. I will not point out that a royal scepter – clearly associated with divine appointment and the rule of an aristocratic dynasty – was chosen as the symbol of parliament, the temple of democracy. What Is Interesting is the claim that it is the “Cholas” – a medieval dynasty that I find utterly fascinating and undergoing a period of rediscovery-cum-rewriting by India’s political right.
The general consensus seems to be that the scepter was formed by the priests of Tiruvaduthurai in 1947, about 700 years after the fall of the Cholas. Why is it called Chola and not Nayak or Thanjavur Maratha? During the reigns of these early modern rulers in the 17th and 18th centuries, we have much more extensive mentions of Sengols. But then, if the Sengol was built in 1947, why not just say it’s a modern artifact?
The answer comes down to how we conceive of history, and what we think we have inherited from it. in one InterviewBharatanatyam dancer Padma Subrahmanyam- who has a Role To play in the recent rediscovery of Seongol – noted that “the South has been more fortunate to preserve its heritage and traditions.” The view is widely held that the Cholas represent some primordial past that has been preserved in South India. But what does it really mean?
Reinventing Bharatanatyam
Let’s take dance as an example, simply because it is one of the few South Indian phenomena that has actually been thoroughly studied over time. devdasis Or devaratiyalsThe women of the temple in the Chola period were usually local landlords. and there is little evidence that they were exclusively dancers (Leslie Orr’s Giver, Devotee, Daughters of God, 2000). A new phenomenon emerged in the Nayak/Thanjavur Maratha period of the 18th century when devdasis Were Impressive and cultured courtesans who developed a dance style (Velcheru Narayana Rao’s symbol of substance.) It was re-invented and claimed by the Anglophone Tamil middle classes in the 20th century and has come down to us as “traditional” Bharatanatyam (of Davesh Soneji). incomplete gestures2019,
Which of the following is the “true” history of Bharatanatyam? In claiming that today’s Bharatanatyam is the true successor of an “ancient” tradition, we are ignoring how the various dance forms and the socio-cultural activities around them evolved over time. Isn’t that all our history too? From an objective point of view, it is indeed strange that one situation is conceived as “true” history and the other is not. The Chola period itself was an innovative time, quite different from those that came before. We can even go back to the Iron Age and go back to making megaliths. but he also brought with him innovation, And so on and so on. There is no “origin” history anywhere.
Chola appropriation, past to present
The resurgence of the Cholas in political memory is particularly strange, given that most of the dynasty’s successors rarely mention them. When the armies of the Vijayanagara Empire reached Tamil Nadu in the 14th century, they looked to the Pandyas—the rivals of the Cholas—for legitimacy. Even after the fall of Vijayanagara, the Cholas were only vaguely referred to by local rulers, who generally claimed power as successors to Vijayanagara rather than the Cholas themselves. Only one exceptionally erudite ruler—the Thanjavur Maratha Sarfoji II—claimed the title of “Chola king” in the 18th and 19th centuries (Lennart Bess, Heirs of Vijayanagara2022).
In the 20th century, the Cholas were rediscovered and re-imagined as unique conquerors and devotees, and as exemplary Tamil nationalist heroes. Not that they had been seen before. But given the psychological world that followed with debates about colonialism, partition, independence and Hindi imposition, it makes sense. Yet, the public conversation about the Cholas has not changed significantly over the decades, even though they have received excellent academic attention. Instead, the Cholas are now Hindu nationalist hero, not only tamil Nationalist hero.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Supremo Mohan Bhagwat In 2015 it had this to say about the Cholas, particularly the conqueror Rajendra I: “They established a model of good governance in India and propagated the benevolent influence of timeless Indian culture throughout Southeast Asia.” The BJP is keen to associate itself with this image. But to what extent is this image based on historical facts?
On the question of “good governance”, decades of historical research have shown that the Chola state was in no way comparable to the modern state. The scale and penetration of the modern Indian state was unimaginable for the medieval state, which typically resembled a conglomeration of small and affiliated political bubbles. Professor Y. Subbarayalu (South India under the Cholas2012), Noboru Karashima (South Indian Society in Transition2009), Whitney Cox (Politics, Monarchy and Poetry2016) and George Spencer (politics of expansion1983) have pointed out that under Rajendra I the Chola kingdom was militarized to an unprecedented extent. It needed conquests to sustain itself, to impose its authority in allied political bubbles, and to perform its own spectacular feats of engineering and logistics. When it ran out of manpower, as most conquered states do, it became a small territorial unit – once again a collection of political bubbles. It was only for about 90 years – less than a third of its total history – that the Chola kingdom was on the offensive. The history of how the Cholas attempted to centralize a multi-centralized land, and what they achieved in spite of such multi-centrality, is much more interesting than a vague claim of “good governance”.
Next, the only historical evidence of Bhagavata’s claim to Southeast Asia is an inscription left by Rajendra I (south indian inscriptions XXII, No. 20). As one archaeologist very dryly told me at a conference in February: “We take inscriptions very seriously.” Except for a few lines in an inscription, there is no evidence of permanent Chola control in Southeast Asia. it is highly likely that Chola Invasion There was a limited edition. But facts and evidence do not matter in our modern memory of the Cholas. We view the past through the politics of emotion, dismissing inconvenient history and unfairly remembering those we claim to revere in a politics of “return to our roots”.
It is strange that since 2014 there is a continuous complaint that the Cholas are not talked about. They absolutely are, but mostly through complaints that aren’t talked about, or the same inane lines about their “heroic victories”. Specifics never come into the picture, because they are not as politically useful as vague sentiments. If we really want history to be remembered as it was, it is time for more than grand and symbolic gestures. Until then, it’s clear what the whole Sengol fiasco is really about: calculated politics rather than homage to the past.
Anirudh Kanisetty is a public historian. He is the author of Lords of the Deccan, a new history of medieval South India, and hosts the Echoes of India and War podcasts. He tweeted @AKanisetti. Thoughts are personal.
This article is a part ofmedieval thinking‘ series that takes a deep dive into the medieval culture, politics and history of India.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)