INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN MULTIDISCIPLINARY FIELD ISSN: 2455-0620 Volume - 6, Issue - 7, July – 2020 Monthly, Peer-Reviewed, Refereed, Indexed Journal with IC Value: 86.87 Impact Factor: 6.719 Received Date: 02/07/2020 Acceptance Date: 17/07/2020 Publication Date: 31/07/2020 Available online on – WWW.IJIRMF.COM Page 148 Minor Chiefs and “Hero” in Ancient Tamiḻakam: The topography of ‘Akanāṉūṟu’ R. K. K. Rajarajan Assistant Professor of Fine Arts, School of Tamil, Indian Languages and Rural Arts, Gandhigram Rural Institute – Deemed to be University, Gandhigram – 624 302, Tamil Nadu Email - rkkrajarajan@yahoo.com 1. INTRODUCTION: When the ‘District Gazetteer’ were compiled during the British-rāj in India (19 th -20 th century), J.F. Fleet, an eminent epigraphist and anthropologist, had observed the history of an imperial dynasty is incomplete if the local chieftains and feudatories are not duly considered. Professor M.S. Govindasamy (1965, 1979: preface) of the Aṇṇāmalai University has cited the ‘Bombay Gazetteer’ writing on the feudatories of the Pallavas and Imperial Cōḻas. Scholars think the fall of the Imperial Cōḻas was imminent because the feudatories were rebellious. Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, historical literature (1776-1781), evidenced the collapse of the Great Empire was at the hands of ‘Barbarians’ (the White Huns) and ‘Religion’ (Christianity [A.J. Toynbee in A Study of History]). Similarly, the fall of the Muvēntar (the Trio consisting of Cēra-Cōḻa-Pāṇḍya) was at the hands of the alien-Kaḷabhras and the belligerently in-coming Buddhism and Jainism. The followers of the two northern religions were active since the BCE’s in the south, e.g. the advent-myth of Candragupta to Sravaṇabelgola (Settar 1983: pl. viii), the Buddhist monuments in the Nāgārjunakoṇḍa valley (Sarkar & Misra 1987: pls. V-VIII), Amarāvatī and the frequently inundating Kṛṣṇā basin 1 . The Kaḷappirar (Kaḷabhra c. 200 to 550 CE) were Jain-Buddhist rulers of the Tamil country, patrons of the didactic works, Patineṇkīḻkaṇakku. The Pāṇḍyas of Maturai and Pallavas of Kāñci recovered the land from the kings of the Kali age, i.e. Kaliyaracar-Kalappirar as attested by the Vēḷvikkuṭi Copper Plates 2 . This leads to the saga of Tamil bhakti literature under Kāraikkāl Ammaiyār (Rajarajan 2018: 72-75) and the early Āḻvārs (Rajarajan, Parthiban and Kalidos 2017: I, 20-22, 28). 1 Uṇḍavalli, the Kṛṣṇā flowing fast within a short distance from the village, is the abode of Buddhist-Hindu rock-cut temples (Kalidos 2006: IV. I, pl. V.2), see the Hindu excavations in Moghulrājapuram and Akaṇṇa-Madaṇṇa in the foothills of Vijayavāḍa. 2 ‘Kaḷapparaṉeṉuṅ kaliyaracaṉ kaikkoṇṭataṉai yiṟakkiyapiṉ…” the Vēḷvikkuṭi grant in Kalidos (1976: 75, 176 cited from Paṇṭārattār 1967: Annexure). For historical crosscurrents see Sastri (1972, 1972a 1984), Mahalingam (1968) and Kalidos (1976: 72-78). Abstract: The ancient Tamil country, known as Tamiḻakam, including part of present-day Kēraḷa and Āndhradeśa, was under the suzerainty of the triple kings, known as Mūvēntar, Cēra-Cōḻa-Pāṇiyar. However, there was no national consciousness even if the itihāsa-purāṇas talk of mahā-Bhārata (mā-Pāratam) and Jambudvīpa (Nāvalantīvu). The idea of the nation, sovereignty, the identity of people under one territorial boundary, and the government was absent. The case of Tamilnāḍu was much more precarious. Some 2000 years ago, not less than seventy minor potentates, who were endlessly fighting with the Mūvēntar, ruled the Deep South of peninsular India, particularly the Tamil zone. They were the kuunila-maṉnar (little kings of small lands). Their government, as a rule, was benevolent, and they were great patrons of letters. Even if divided, they united when an invasion from the north was imminent. Aśoka Maurya (third century BCE), Khāravela-Kaliṅga of the Hathigumpha Inscription (Thapar 1972: 93), the Sātavāhanas (Shastri 1999: 151) and Samudragupta (330-380 CE) could not conquer the extreme south. The present study strives to sort out the little kingdoms in Tamilnāḍu and their rulers. The main source is two-millennium old literature, the Akanāṉūu and its counterpart, the Puanāṉūu. I have just listed the names relating to historical geography, and their rulers. One may guess how unity and diversity of the past is example and warning respectively. A far-sighted historian may advocate ‘University State’ (A.J. Toynbee). The sense of unification in Germany under Otto von Bismarck (Nehru 2004: 592-99) and Italy under Giuesppe Mazini and Giuesppe Garibaldi (Nehru 2004: 587-91) is unknown to Indian history until the advent of the British. Scholars wonder “if” (an enigma) India had attained freedom after 1857 (or 1801 as South Indian historians say), it would have broken into several segmentary states. A united nation, even if truncated (1947) would have been beyond reach, which is not the concern here. Key Words: Akanāṉūu; Puanāṉūu; Minor Chiefs; Vēḷir, vaḷḷal; Mūvēntar.