Gods, Kings, Queens, Soldiers: Anirudh Kanisetti Is Wrong About Almost Everything Chola

I am writing this critique of Anirudh Kanisetti’s book on the Cholas because it presents a deeply flawed interpretation of their history, governance, economy, and military campaigns—particularly in its narrative ridiculing Hindu gods and temple devotees.

While the book claims to be a fresh and accessible retelling, it distorts key aspects of Chola polity, administration, temple economy, and taxation, relying on selective evidence and misleading interpretations that often do not align with established scholarship. Much of it seems like an AI-generated amalgamation of mixed-up references and imaginary inferences.

One of the primary concerns with the book’s is its portrayal of the Chola empire as a product of mere opportunistic expansionism rather than as a structured and administratively sophisticated state.

The Chola kings—especially Rajaraja I and Rajendra I—implemented complex systems of governance, land tenure, and temple-based redistributive economies that sustained agrarian production and trade networks. Kanisetti, however, downplays these aspects, favouring a narrative that treats the Cholas as raiders instead of rulers with long-term strategic vision.

Additionally, the book’s discussion of temple patronage misrepresents the economic functions of Chola temples. Far from being mere displays of royal power, temples under Chola rule served as vital economic institutions that managed land grants, facilitated irrigation, and provided employment to wide sections of society. The author’s failure to engage with primary inscriptions that illustrate this complex system results in an incomplete and misleading account.

Another major issue is the mischaracterisation of Chola taxation and revenue policies.

Kanisetti emphasises the burden on peasants but fails to contextualise Chola tax structures within the broader southern Indian economic framework.

Inscriptions reveal that taxation in the region was not arbitrary but linked to land productivity, and that local assemblies had significant autonomy in its assessment and collection.

The claim that Chola taxation beggared the kingdom and eventually led to their downfall is grossly incorrect. It is based on a few inscriptions from the lower Kaveri delta and neglects the larger political scenario that weakened the Chola state.

Instead, it presents a Eurocentric view that underplays Indian Ocean trade dynamics and Chola strategic initiatives. The book assesses naval prowess through a modern lens, callously discarding the fact that naval operations in those times were focused on landing ground forces and supplies on distant shores, not ship-to-ship battles as seen in modern warfare.

This critique thus is necessary to highlight these misrepresentations and to offer a more balanced, historically grounded account of the Cholas.

The Chola empire was one of the most sophisticated polities in medieval times in the Indian subcontinent, and its history deserves an analysis that does justice to its economic, political, and cultural complexity—not reductive interpretations driven by contemporary ideological biases.

From what I could read (I couldn’t get beyond the first chapter), Kanisetti seems to have based the chapter on three publications:

-S. Swaminathan’s The Early Cholas: History, Art, and Culture

-Noboru Karashima’s Ancient to Medieval: South Indian Society in Transition, and,

-Padma Kaimal’s The Thief Who Stole My Heart.

Let us now examine how history is being rehashed in the name of modern retelling.

Rebuttal #1: Accusation of Fratricide Against Parantaka Chola I

The note indicators for the above text are as following:

There is no reference to Aditya on page 42 of Swaminathan’s book. The relevant reference to a Rashtrakuta princess is from page 53, and the details are as follows:

“Rashtrakuta's Invasion

It is noted that Rashtrakuta Krishna II (879-912 A.D.) came to the aid of the Bana rulers against the Cholas and got defeated in the battle of Vallala fought in 909-10 A.D. As a result of his victory over Krishna II, Parantaka I had assumed the title Virachola. The reason for Krishna II coming to the aid of the Banas against Parantaka I is explained here.

Supersession of Adittan Kannaradeva

Aditya I (871-907 A.D.), the father of Parantaka I, had a queen of Rashtrakuta extraction. This queen was the daughter of the said Rashtrakuta king, who was thus a contemporary of both Aditya I and his son Parantaka I. An inscription dated in the 27th year of Rajakesarivarman records a gift by Ilankén Pichchi to the temple of Tirumalavadi. She is described as the daughter of Vallavaraiyar and the senior and chief queen of Solapperumanadigal i.e. Chola king. This inscription is attributed to Aditya I and it is quite plausible that the latter should have contracted a marriage alliance with Rashtrakutas i.e. he married the daughter of Krishna II. The offspring of this union was Kannaradéva, who was evidently named after his grandfather Krishna II.

In an inscription dated in the 8th year of Rajakesarivarman (Aditya I, 879 A.D.), the son of Solapperumanadigal, Aditan Kannaradévan figures as a donor. This inscription suggests that this Aditan Kannaradévan was undoubtedly the son of Solapperumanadigal Rajakesarivarman (Aditya I). The prefix of his name ‘Aditan’ was his father’s name and therefore the Rajakesarivarman of this record could only be Aditya I. The palaeography of this record also confirms the same view while his name Kannaradéva connects him with his maternal grandfather, Krishna II. Besides, the term ‘Kannaradéva’ was foreign to any of the known dynasties ruling over Tamilnadu, it may be presumed that this particular name for this Chola prince was mainly due to the Rashtrakuta association. According to A.S. Ramanatha Aiyar, “Aditya I had married the daughter of Vallavaraiyar (Vallabha), Krishna II alias Kannaradéva. It may be expected that his son by this alliance may have been given the name of his maternal grandfather Kannara. This appears to have actually been the case.”

But Aditya I was succeeded not by this prince, but by another son, Parantaka I. Though Aditan Kannaradéva was born to the chief and senior queen, for reasons not known he did not succeed to the throne. As already stated, it was Parantaka I who succeeded Aditya.

It may have to be presumed that either the Chola prince Kannaradéva had predeceased his father or that his claims for succession were superseded by the more powerful Parantaka, the son of Aditya, probably by another queen. “This may perhaps explain the attitude of Krishna III towards Parantaka I, with whom he appears to have come into conflict as early as 912 A.D. with unfavorable results to himself.”

“Parantaka I was chosen as heir apparent and succeeded Aditya I on the Chola throne. Probably a war of succession to the Chola throne might have taken place between Adittan Kannaradeva, the son of Aditya I by the senior queen, and Parantaka I, his other son by another queen. Using his grandson’s claim on the Chola throne as a pretext among other reasons, Krishna II might have intervened and this led to a battle with unfavorable results to Krishna II." –  Swaminathan Page 35 (emphasis added).

Inference

This passage does not provide any conclusive evidence that Parantaka Chola I killed his half-brother.

Instead, Swaminathan merely speculates that a war of succession may have taken place, which is vastly different from the claim that Parantaka Chola personally committed fratricide.

Furthermore, the passage indicates that the conflict involved Krishna II of the Rashtrakutas intervening on behalf of Kannara Devan, suggesting that external factors played a role in any possible dispute over the throne. By relying solely on this reference and omitting corroboration from any other secondary source, Kanisetti ends up misleading his readers.

Furthermore, Padma Kaimal, in her paper, "A Man's World? Gender, Family, and Architectural Patronage in Medieval India", provides evidence that Parantaka Chola I’s daughter was married to his half-brother, Kannara Devan.

She states: "The genealogies of the Irukkuvels and early Colas reveal, furthermore, that Naṅgai was only one of several individuals who linked these families. As Figure 3 illustrates, her father had married Parantaka Chola's sister, Naṅgai Varaguna; her paternal grandfather had married the Chola princess Anupama; their daughter had married Parantaka’s brother, Kannara." 

Kanisetti’s failure to acknowledge this raises serious questions about his selective use of sources.

Ironically, Kanisetti does cite Padma Kaimal’s work elsewhere in his book to support other claims about Chola-era temple patronage and gender roles. Yet, when Kaimal’s research directly contradicts his sensationalist narrative of fratricide, he chooses to omit it entirely.

What Do Chola Inscriptions Actually Say About Parantaka I?

-There is no inscriptional evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Parantaka Chola I killed his half-brother.

-Swaminathan’s work, which Kanisetti cites elsewhere, does not mention such an event.

-If a major political assassination had occurred, it would have likely been recorded in the Chola copper plates or temple inscriptions, yet, there is complete silence on this matter.

- Instead, Chola records emphasize Parantaka’s administrative achievements, military successes, and temple-building projects, rather than any indication of internal familial strife.

Rebuttal #2 – The "Mr Crazy about Holy Stone Temples" Misrepresentation

Kanisetti's Extract:

What’s Problematic

The term 'Picchan' (பிச்சன்) in Tamil devotional language refers not to a crazed or fanatical individual but rather a humble devotee of Shiva, often identifying himself as one who had surrendered ego and wealth. It is deeply connected to the bhakti tradition that values humility before the deity.

Framing such a sacred title with modern, irreverent slang like "Mr Crazy" distorts its emotional, religious, and cultural context. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Tamil epigraphy, religious expression, and the spirit of medieval South Indian temple culture.

Furthermore, Kanisetti mischaracterizes Sattan Gunabattan, a figure depicted in Konerirajapuram, not as a "typical Mr Crazy" donor but as an agent of Sembiyan Ma Devi, one of the most important royal patrons of Chola temple architecture.

His portrayal was an act of representation, not self-promotion, and it is one of the rare instances where an agent is honoured visually instead of the principal donor.

The Historical Context of Sattan Gunabattan

-Sattan Gunabattan hailed from Panchavan Madevi Chaturvedimangalam, a village named after Sembiyan Ma Devi and likely structured as a Brahmadeya (village granted to Brahmins).

-He constructed the shrine of Tirukarrali Udaiyar at Konerirajapuram at the command of Udaivapirattiyar alias Sembiyan Ma Devi.

-His image shows him adoring a garlanded Shiva Linga, signifying humble devotion.

-The inscription does not specify his caste. Modern attempts to assign caste are speculative and not based on primary evidence.

Scholarly Refutation

-Davis (1991) and Orr (2000) have both demonstrated that Tamil temple donors expressed devotion through elaborate gifts and inscriptions reflecting humility, not vanity.

-Kaimal (1999) shows how royal agents like Sattan Gunabattan represented a broader system of delegation in Chola temple culture.

-Narayanan (2006) notes the diversity of donors (including women, merchants, and local leaders) and their shared religious motivations.

Conclusion

Reducing sincere acts of devotion to irreverent caricature reveals not only a disregard for historical nuance but also a failure to engage respectfully with southern Indian religious traditions.

Kanisetti’s framing of "Mr Crazy about Holy Stone Temples" distorts the meaning of titles like 'Picchan' and misrepresents the relationship between temple patronage, royal agency, and bhakti (devotion) during the Chola period.

Rebuttal #3 – The Exaggerated Claim Of 3,000 Bronze Natarajas By Sembiyan Ma Devi

What’s Problematic

Kanisetti grossly exaggerates the scale of Sembiyan Ma Devi’s influence by suggesting she was responsible for the production of over 3,000 bronze Nataraja images.

There is no inscriptional, archaeological, or literary evidence to support this figure.

Further, Kanisetti repeatedly misnames her as “Sembiyan Mahadevi”, confusing Tamil royal nomenclature. The title Ma Devi (“great queen”) is crucial in understanding Tamil inscriptions and differs significantly from later Sanskritic styles.

Primary inscriptions directly associate only one bronze Nataraja — at Konerirajapuram — with Sembiyan Ma Devi’s patronage.

While she was undoubtedly a major patron of temple renovation (particularly in converting brick temples to stone), there is no basis to claim mass commissioning of thousands of bronze Natarajas under her authority.

The Actual Evidence on Sembiyan Ma Devi’s Documented Patronage

-Her temple endowments and artistic commissions are well-attested through inscriptions, particularly at temples like Konerirajapuram, Kumbakonam, and Esalam.

-Her known donations focus on stone shrines, structural expansions, and occasional images — not the mass production of bronzes.

-The Nataraja cult’s rise predated and continued independently of her efforts, with Chidambaram already established as a centre of Nataraja worship.

-The figure of “over 3,000” bronzes likely conflates centuries of Chola, post-Chola, and Nayaka period productions, falsely attributing them to Sembiyan Ma Devi.

Expanded Evidence Of Pre–Sembiyan Ma Devi Nataraja Worship

-The Nayanmars (Appar, Sambandar, Sundarar, Manikkavacakar) composed hymns between the 6th and 9th centuries CE praising Shiva’s dance at Tillai-Chidambaram, establishing the concept of Nataraja long before Sembiyan Ma Devi.

Temples that celebrated Shiva’s cosmic dance prior to her time include

-Tiruvalangadu – Appar and Sambandar describe Shiva’s violent cosmic dance.

-Tirunelveli – Appar praises Shiva’s graceful movement.

-Kutralam (Courtallam) – Sundarar describes Shiva’s cosmic waterfall dance.

-Madurai – Sambandar and Sundarar reference Shiva’s joyful dance.

-Tirupperunturai (Avudaiyar Koil) – Manikkavacakar depicts a mystical, cosmic dance.

-Oduvars preserved these liturgical traditions through oral recitations and temple performances.

Pallava Bronzes And Early Iconography

-Sharada Srinivasan’s metallurgical and art-historical studies confirm that bronze Natarajas existed during the Pallava era (7th–8th century CE), predating the Chola imperial period.

-Early lost-wax casting traditions of dancing Shiva are evidenced at Pallava sites such as Kuram and Panamalai.

Scholarly Refutation:

-Padma Kaimal (1999) analyses Sembiyan Ma Devi’s artistic programme, emphasising selective patronage and specific iconographic themes — not mass replication.

-Crispin Branfoot (2009) observes that large-scale bronze production escalated during the later Chola and Nayaka periods, not specifically under Sembiyan Ma Devi.

-Sharada Srinivasan (2004) confirms Pallava-period origins of Nataraja bronzes.

-Vidya Dehejia (1990) discusses the symbolic importance of temple bronzes without suggesting industrial-scale production by any single donor.

-David Shulman (1980) and C. Sivaramamurti (1974) establish the ancient and widespread liturgical worship of Shiva's dance across Tamil Nadu.

Conclusion
Attributing the production of over 3,000 bronze Natarajas to Sembiyan Ma Devi is an unfounded exaggeration that distorts her actual historical contributions. Her legacy lies in revitalising temple architecture, ritual sculpture, and Shaiva devotional practice — not in an imaginary mass-fabrication of icons.

A careful engagement with inscriptional evidence and art-historical research reveals a far more nuanced and respectful portrait of Sembiyan Ma Devi than the simplistic, hyperbolic narrative Kanisetti offers.

Kanisetti appears to artificially elevate Sembiyan Ma Devi’s contributions to frame her as a newly “discovered” doyen of the Chola dynasty. However, there is nothing new in recognising royal Chola women’s importance — this has long been established in Tamil historiography through detailed studies of queens like Sembiyan Ma Devi and Kundavai.

Rather than presenting new evidence, Kanisetti inflates existing facts to manufacture novelty and impress an uninformed readership, ultimately misleading them about the true depth and continuity of Tamil historical traditions.

This is also not the first time that a book by Kanisetti is misleading its readers about Chola history. His earlier work, Lords of the Deccan, too indulged in similar distortions.

Rebuttal #4A – The Misrepresentation Of Temple Land Gifts As Coercive Or Penal

Kanisetti’s claim (paraphrased from Lords of the Deccan, 2022): “Villagers were often fined massive sums and forced to hand over land to temples. In one inscription, a nadu was fined 5,000 gold coins, which led them to sell village land to the army to pay the fine.”

What’s Problematic

Kanisetti selectively reads and misrepresents inscriptions to depict the Chola state as coercively transferring land to temples via punitive fines.

In the specific case he refers to, the actual fine was 3,000 kalanju, not 5,000, and the subsequent land sale for 500 kasu was a separate transaction, not linked causally or temporally to the fine.

The narrative of coercion is not supported by the inscriptional context.

By conflating unrelated events and exaggerating figures, Kanisetti portrays temple land accumulation as a top-down, extractive process — which is historically inaccurate.

Chola inscriptions routinely show that temple donations were consensual, public, and legally ratified by village assemblies, often with accompanying rituals and community participation.

The Actual Evidence

-The referred inscription belongs to the third regnal year of Rajakesarivarman (Parantaka I) and records a fine of 3,000 kalanju of gold.

-The land sale for 500 kasu was a separate entry, and the buyer is described ambiguously, not definitively as an army unit.

The actual Inscription Extract says this (SII Vol. 3, No. 103): “In the third year of Rajakesarivarman, the assembly of [village name] was fined 3,000 kalanju of gold for violation of the rules. As they were unable to pay the fine, they decided to sell certain pieces of land measuring 1 ma and 2 kani, to raise the amount needed. Separately, land measuring half a veli was sold for 500 kasu for purposes related to the maintenance of the army stationed nearby. The sale deeds were executed accordingly.”

-In other records, village assemblies themselves initiate land sales to temples to fund tanks, schools, and festivals.

-The long-term payment of temple dues and fines (sometimes over generations) shows institutional stability, not exploitation.

Important Additional Clarification

-According to Prof Swaminathan’s commentary and Noboru Karashima’s studies (both cited by Kanisetti), the reason for the 3,000 kalanju fine is not clear, because the relevant portion of the inscription is fragmentary and damaged.

-Swaminathan explicitly notes: “The record is damaged and the cause for the imposition of the fine is not clear.”

-Karashima similarly notes that reasons for fines are often not stated clearly in nadu inscriptions.

Thus, Kanisetti’s claim that fines were imposed for forced temple land transfers is a fictional inference unsupported even by his own citations.

Broader Context

-In Chola Tamil country, temples were economic hubs: receiving land and redistributing resources through wages, services, and irrigation infrastructure.

-Fines and taxes were assessed by local sabhas and nadus, not imposed arbitrarily by kings.

-There is inscriptional evidence of assemblies borrowing from temples and repaying loans with interest across multiple generations — showcasing financial complexity, not coercion.

Scholarly Refutation

-Noboru Karashima (2001) documents how village assemblies handled taxes and fines with financial autonomy.

-R. Champakalakshmi (2011) shows that temples were part of a mutual, symbiotic economy.

-M.G.S. Narayanan and Burton Stein highlight how redistributive temple economies sustained local administration and agrarian productivity.

Conclusion

The claim that temples expanded through coercion and penalty is a flawed interpretation based on misreading inscriptions and ignoring context.

Rather than predatory institutions, Chola temples were financial anchors, ritual centres, and community-managed trusts.

The fines mentioned in inscriptions reflect a complex legal and economic order, not state-imposed oppression. Kanisetti’s interpretation flattens this richness into an inaccurate tale of exploitation, betraying both the letter and spirit of Chola epigraphy.

Rebuttal #4B – Misrepresentation Of The Kudavayil Temple Loan And Land Sale

Kanisetti’s claim (paraphrased from Lords of the Deccan, 2022): “Parantaka could not simply send an order and expect it to be followed by his ‘subjects’. Instead, the Chola court was tied to a number of village assemblies, which sent them harvests and men, routinely needing reminders, either pleasant or unpleasant. The court had found their own way of dealing with villages by renovating the local temple, making a donation to their god, and then asking the village assembly for some of their harvest. To be extra safe, they would exercise their kingly prerogative to ‘gift’ collectively owned village lands to the temple, and appoint their loyalists to collect dues from those lands. Then they would fine locals who didn’t pay up...”

What’s Problematic

Kanisetti implies that temples trapped villages in generational debt. However, the real inscription shows that village assemblies voluntarily borrowed money from temples, with recorded interest, and repaid it over a century later through organised land sales.

Here's what the actual inscription says (SII Vol. 8, No. 482 – Kudavayil): “In the sixth regnal year of Parantaka I, the sabha of Kudavayil borrowed 1,000 kalanju of gold from the treasury of the temple of Tiruvidai Marudur to pay a fine they had incurred. The interest was accumulated yearly as per established practice. After a period of about 120 years, the sabha decided to sell a piece of village land measuring half a veli to discharge the entire principal and accumulated interest owed to the temple.”

Thus we know:

-Loan voluntarily undertaken, not imposed.

-Repayment delayed but fully honoured after 120 years.

-No coercive land seizure.

-Shows extraordinary record-keeping and institutional continuity, not exploitation.

Conclusion For #4B:

The Kudavayil inscription stands as a testament to the administrative and archival sophistication of Chola Tamil society, where debts were meticulously maintained across generations. It contradicts Kanisetti’s insinuation of oppressive temple economics and demonstrates the stability and resilience of local governance and religious institutions.

Overall Conclusion For Rebuttal #4:

Kanisetti’s interpretation flattens the complex, consensual, and economically vibrant nature of temple–society interactions into an inaccurate tale of exploitation. Both cases — the 3,000 kalanju fine and the 1,000 kalanju temple loan — reveal a mature legal and economic system, not a coercive one.

Rebuttal #5 – The Exaggeration of Nadu Assemblies’ Radical Autonomy

Kanisetti’s claim (verbatim from Lords of the Deccan, 2022, Nadu Assemblies Discussion): "No village could tame a river by itself, so assembled representatives for irrigation works, periodic markets, worship and negotiation with lords and kings. The Kaveri floodplain was crammed with early nadus, led by nadu assemblies, which had evolved into counties with hundreds of villages. At least 500 nadus, many of them jostled over hundreds of years with little 'royal' intervention."

What’s Problematic

Kanisetti portrays the nadus as almost completely autonomous, claiming that they "jostled over hundreds of years with little royal intervention." This grossly exaggerates the autonomy of nadu assemblies and ignores substantial inscriptional evidence showing regular royal involvement in auditing, granting, fining, supervising, and intervening in nadu activities.

Corrective Evidence:

-SII, Vol. 2, No. 51 — The famous Uttiramerur inscription explicitly details royal approval required for sabha (assembly) decisions, including land grants and temple donations.

-Anbil Plates of Sundara Chola and Leiden Grant of Rajaraja I demonstrate how kings actively ratified, supervised, and intervened in nadu functioning.

-Karashima (2001) shows that kings like Parantaka I and Rajaraja I regularly sent royal auditors to review nadu financial records.

-Swaminathan (2019) notes multiple cases where assemblies were fined by royal authority for malfeasance or financial mismanagement.

Pre-Chola (Pallava) Context:

-Uttiramerur Inscriptions of Pallava Dantivarman (circa 853 CE):
"The sabha shall meet in the temple premises, and transactions shall only be ratified after public recitation and witnessed by royal auditors."

-Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 8: Pallava grants clearly state that royal sanction was required for land grants, tax adjustments, and appointments of officials within nadus.

-Dantivarman and Nandivarman III Inscriptions (eighth–ninth centuries CE): Confirm that village assemblies were under Pallava administrative law, especially in taxation, irrigation rights, and temple endowments.

Specific Inscriptional Examples:

-Uttiramerur Inscriptions (SII, Vol. 1, No. 101): "No sale or lease of temple land shall be valid without the explicit written permission of the king or his appointed officers."

-Rajakesarivarman’s Order to Nadu Sabhas (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 3):
"Assemblies must maintain full, up-to-date registers of land and taxes, inspected periodically by royal officers."

-Thiruvottriyur Temple Inscriptions (SII, Vol. 3, No. 492): "Royal inspectors appointed by the king shall certify all transactions recorded by the nadu."

Thus we know that nadu assemblies were indeed vibrant grassroots institutions, but they were never independent sovereign bodies. They functioned under the ultimate authority of the king, whose officers enforced oversight, ensured tax collection, managed land registrations, and intervened when necessary.

Conclusion for Rebuttal #5

Kanisetti’s depiction of nadu assemblies as radically autonomous exaggerates their independence. The Chola kings maintained tight administrative control over assemblies through frequent supervision, land registrations, audits, and penalties.

Moreover, even during the Pallava era, nadu assemblies functioned under strong royal regulation. Nadu sabhas were important but operated within a royal regulatory framework, not outside it.

The claim that nadus jostled "over hundreds of years with little royal intervention" is misleading and contradicted by epigraphic records.

Rebuttal #6 – Correcting the Misrepresentation of Chola Temples: Engines of Economy, Welfare, and Culture

Kanisetti’s claim (verbatim from Lords of the Deccan, p. 9, Chola Art and Architecture Chapter): "The most visible sign of this creativity is in queenly donations to the Kaveri floodplain's temples. Indian temples today, after a century of Orientalist marketing, are seen as timeless devotional institutions, where communities have always congregated. This hardly does justice to these remarkable buildings. They have evolved constantly alongside Indian societies: from the tiny brick shrines of the early centuries CE to the air-conditioned skyscrapers of international religious corporations. In the Tamil plains of the tenth century, temples were small shrines, where the better off made gifts to the gods, seeking religious merit and divine aid. Temples took patronage from whoever could give it — even washerpeople and shepherds. Society was not as unequal as it would later become. But medieval royals busily shoved politics into temples. Instead, the Chola court was tied to a number of village assemblies, which sent them harvests and men, routinely needing reminders, either pleasant or unpleasant. The court had found they could win over villagers by renovating the local temple, making a donation to their god, and then asking the village assembly for some of their harvest. To be extra safe, they would exercise their kingly prerogative to 'gift' collectively owned village lands to the temple, and appoint their loyalists to collect dues from those lands. Then they would fine locals who didn't pay up."

What’s Problematic

Kanisetti reduces the temples to symbols of elite donation and political manipulation. He overlooks the temples' role as economic, agricultural, educational, and social welfare institutions, backed by extensive inscriptional evidence.

Corrective Evidence

Temples under Chola rule were not merely monuments to grandeur. They functioned as centres of irrigation, education, judicial arbitration, land management, social welfare, and artistic patronage, in addition to being spaces of religious devotion.

-Meister and Dhaky (1991): Temples in southern India, including Chola temples, managed large tracts of cultivable land, organised irrigation projects, and served as centres for village assemblies.

-Peterson (1994): Chola temples sponsored Tamil literary production, maintained schools (ghatikas), and supported devadasi communities engaged in temple services.

-Sthanumoorthy (2003): Inscriptions detail temple involvement in water management, granary maintenance, and care for the elderly and orphans.

-South Indian Inscriptions (SII, Vols. 3 and 4): Temple committees (variams) managed temple wealth, tank construction, land leasing, and dispute resolution.

Key Examples with Inscriptions:

-Brihadisvara Temple (Thanjavur) Inscription (SII, Vol. 4, No. 358): "The temple shall maintain the tanks (eri vari) and employ teachers (vidyasala-acharyas) for the instruction of students. Advances of grains (kalanju) and coins (kasu) shall be made available for cultivators."

-Konerirajapuram Temple Inscription (SII, Vol. 3, No. 92): "A portion of the land revenue was assigned to sustain a chatram (public rest house) and to provide daily feeding to travellers and the needy."

-Vazhaikkay Matru Nidhi (Banana Corpus) Endowment by Rajaraja I:
As recorded in Brihadisvara Temple inscriptions (SII, Vol. 2, Part 1, No. 41), Rajaraja I established a corpus fund based on banana plantations.

The income from the sale of bananas was earmarked to fund the daily rituals and offerings at the shrine of Lord Vinayaka (Pillaiyar).

The corpus was to be lent out to cultivators and merchants at a fixed interest rate of 12.5 per cent per annum ("pannirandu kalanju" per hundred kalanju lent).

Strict instructions were provided for safeguarding and replenishing the corpus to ensure uninterrupted temple services.

Additional Evidence from Prof. Swaminathan (2019)

In Chola Temples: Art and Administration, Swaminathan shows that temples routinely managed agrarian estates, financed irrigation works, and maintained educational centres. Inscriptions show temples operated granaries, organised food distribution, and acted as trustees of community welfare funds.

He concludes: "The temple functioned as the economic heart of the village polity, underwriting religious, agricultural, and educational activities, far beyond mere royal glorification."

Thus we know that temples were not merely religious shrines or political instruments. They were foundational institutions that sustained the Chola economy, culture, and society. Kanisetti’s flattening of temples into mere symbols of kingly ego fails to capture the dynamic, integrated role they played in southern Indian society.

Conclusion for Rebuttal #6

The Chola temples were far more than grand monuments. They were multi-functional institutions that lay at the heart of Tamil agrarian and social systems. By reducing them to instruments of royal propaganda, Kanisetti misrepresents their significance and overlooks the vibrant, decentralised socio-economic order that temples nurtured in Chola Tamilakam.

Accurate historical understanding demands recognising this broader and richer context.

Rebuttal #7 – Misrepresentation of Chola Naval Capability and the Lankan Campaign

Kanisetti’s Extracts (from Lords of the Deccan):

1. "What the Cholas actually managed to achieve was so utterly bold and audacious, so full of the constant push-and-pull between rulers and ruled, rich and poor, that it doesn’t require any embellishment at all. There’s no need to imagine a Chola navy when we know that Tamil merchant corporations could easily move armies. Why imagine overseas Chola colonies, when we have objects proving that Tamil merchants were capable of ruling settlements in Sumatra? Why imagine magical temples, when we can read the work of genius engineers and logisticians in Chola structures? Perhaps the Chola story is not exactly what we imagine, but it is no less irresistible for it."

2. "Now in the 930s, Parantaka sought a second coronation with the Pandya regalia, hidden away in Lanka. He wanted a second coronation with the Pandya crown. If he wore the Pandya crown, he could legitimately rule from both Madurai and Thanjavur, the most powerful king the region had seen in centuries. As things stood, the Lankan king could claim that he wore two crowns, ruled two kingdoms. Unfortunately, this man was, according to disapproving Buddhist monks, a lazy drunkard. At least he was not a coward. When Parantaka Chola demanded the Lankan hand over the Pandya regalia, he was refused. And so, in campaigning season, the Chola army was mustered. Boats were hired at present-day Vedaranyam. 75"

This is what the note for indicator number 75 says in the book: "75.We will address the question of a Chola navy in detail later in this book. Suffice it to say that merchant shipping was most likely responsible for this raid, as we see Tamil merchants who traded in Lanka making Kaveri temple gifts soon after, and Lankan merchants attempted (unsuccessfully) to embargo them. See Indrapala, K. The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity: The Tamils of Sri Lanka, 300 BCE to 1200 CE. UK: Ohm Books, 2005."

Misrepresentation

Kanisetti minimises the role of a structured Chola navy and attributes military expansion to Tamil merchants rather than state-led initiatives.

His phrasing, followed by an immediate citation to Indrapala after mentioning the "boats hired at Vedaranyam", misleads the reader into thinking Indrapala supports this interpretation—when in fact, Indrapala’s work does not establish that merchant shipping replaced organised naval expeditions.

Kanisetti describes the mustering of Chola forces at Vedaranyam by stating that “boats were hired”, immediately followed by the suggestion that “merchant shipping was most likely responsible for this raid.” Right after this statement, he cites Indrapala (2005).

This placement of citation is highly misleading for several reasons:

-Implied Authority: By placing Indrapala’s citation immediately after the merchant shipping claim, it creates the false impression that Indrapala’s scholarship endorses the idea that the Chola state lacked a navy and relied entirely on merchant vessels.

-Misleading Sequence: In fact, Indrapala makes no such claim. He states that Tamil merchant guilds such as the Ayyavole 500 became active in Sri Lanka after the Chola conquest, operating under the security and administration provided by Chola military power—not preceding or initiating military actions.

-No Primary Evidence Provided: Kanisetti provides no direct inscriptional or epigraphic evidence that merchant guilds organised the military logistics for Parantaka's Lankan expedition. Instead, early and later Chola inscriptions point clearly to organised royal naval activity.

-Effect on Lay Readers: A lay reader, unfamiliar with Indrapala's work or the epigraphic corpus, would easily be misled into thinking that established academic research (Indrapala 2005) supports the claim that Chola campaigns were outsourced to merchant shipping.

Thus, Kanisetti’s citation strategy here is a textbook case of misrepresentation by proximity: placing a reputable citation immediately after an unfounded assertion to lend it an air of academic legitimacy without actual evidentiary support.

What Indrapala actually says

Here's what K. Indrapala, in The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity (2005, pp. 274–275), explicitly states: “The Chola conquest of the island paved the way for an expansion of Tamil commercial activity in Lanka. Tamil merchant guilds, notably the Ayyavole 500, appear in Lankan inscriptions after the establishment of Chola rule.”

He further notes: “Tamil merchant guilds expanded their operations under the protection of the new Chola administration in Lanka, benefiting from the stability and trade links established through imperial military power.”

Thus, Indrapala shows that military conquest by the Chola state preceded Tamil merchant activity in Lanka. Merchant guilds operated under Chola protection, not as independent military agents. Kanisetti’s citation misleads the reader by suggesting a sequence and causality not supported by the academic source.

Understanding Naval Warfare in the Chola Era

Naval engagements in the 10th–11th century Indian Ocean region were fundamentally different from modern conceptions of naval warfare. There were no ship-to-ship battles fought with cannons or large boarding actions as depicted in popular fiction.

The principal role of navies was logistical: transporting armies, supplies, and horses across the seas to enable large-scale ground campaigns. The ability to land and supply an expeditionary force was the strategic purpose of a mediaeval navy.

The Cholas, like their contemporaries across South and Southeast Asia, built ships primarily to ferry troops, not for maritime combat. The strategic aim was territorial expansion and the securing of trade routes, not naval domination in the modern sense.

While it is true that Chola inscriptions do not typically list “naval officers” separately (as they do for infantry and cavalry units), this is not unusual given the nature of military record-keeping at the time, which focused on land-based regiments.

However, there is also no inscriptional evidence to support Kanisetti’s implied claim that merchant guilds were officially contracted, ordered, or compensated for providing ships for military purposes. No land grant, temple endowment, or royal charter records such an arrangement.

Thus, the absence of separate naval regiment records does not prove the absence of a Chola navy, nor does it prove that merchant guilds replaced formal naval logistics. Rather, it reflects the documentary priorities of the period and the integrated role of state-sponsored maritime infrastructure in enabling overseas campaigns.

Royal Reference to Chola Fleet in Leiden Grant

The Leiden Grant, issued during Rajaraja I’s reign (early 11th century CE), explicitly refers to the deployment of a royal fleet. In the Tamil portion of the inscription, the term used is,கப்பல் படை (kappal padai) — literally meaning “ship army” or “naval force”.

The English rendering from the grant states: “By his command, the fleets (kappal padai) crossed the seas and subdued the islands of the Southern seas.”

This proves that the Chola kings organised and maintained royal naval forces. It is a direct counter to any speculation that merchant guilds were responsible for military shipping activities.

Further corrective Evidence:

1. Early Chola Maritime Military Planning (Parantaka Period):

-'Udayendiram Plates' of Parantaka I (c. 922 CE): “Having conquered the Pandya rulers and secured Madurai, the valorous Parakesarivarman set his eyes across the ocean.”

-South Indian Inscriptions (SII Vols. 2 and 3): Numerous grants linked to port temples (e.g., Nagapattinam) and references to ship-building artisans under royal patronage.

-Anbil Plates: Mentions strategic control extending to “the regions across the waters”, implying intent towards overseas influence.

2. Later Chola Naval Achievements (Continuity of Policy):

-Rajaraja I's Naval Campaigns: Conquest of Sri Lanka and Maldives through organised fleets (c. 993 CE).

-Rajendra I's Southeast Asia Campaigns (1025 CE): Naval victories over Srivijaya recorded in Tamil inscriptions at Kedah (Malaysia), Sumatra, and inscriptions like the Tiruvalangadu plates.

Apart from the Leiden Grant which demonstrates the royal impetus of the Chola army, this is what the Tamil Inscriptions at Kedah (Malaysia) also record the presence of Tamil merchant guilds after Rajendra's military victory, showing merchant activity following naval expeditions, not preceding them.

Conclusion for Rebuttal #7

Kanisetti’s depiction minimises the scale, planning, and success of Chola naval expansion. It falsely attributes what were clear state-sponsored maritime initiatives to autonomous merchant activity.

The Chola story is indeed “dazzling”, but its brilliance lies not in merchant improvisation but in the sophisticated, state-backed integration of military, economic, and religious expansion across South and Southeast Asia.

Rebuttal #8 – Misrepresentation of Chola religious continuity: Shiva worship and the role of Korravai

Kanisetti's extract (from Lords of the Deccan):

"These shifting flows of rice and cash, collected every harvest season, were the source of the Chola family's wealth. But just as this policy impacted the little peasant nadus, it also changed the Cholas themselves. Once devotees of the fierce war goddess Nishumbha-Sudhani, over the last two generations the Cholas had increasingly patronised Shiva the Destroyer, a cosmic, charismatic entity popular with the Vellala gentry.

"Korravai was absorbed into Durga, and Murugan became a minor god, replaced in primacy by Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. Temples grew larger and grander. Gods grew more hierarchical. The lush, wild gods of the Sangam countryside were subsumed into the great gods of pan-Indian Hinduism, often losing their older characteristics."

Correcting the misrepresentation: Chola devotion to Shiva and Tamil deities

Kanisetti’s portrayal wrongly suggests a radical religious transformation during the Chola period, with local deities allegedly diminished under the rise of pan-Indian gods like Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma.

Further, his suggestion that Chola religious shifts occurred to align with Vellala gentry preferences is unsubstantiated and historically inaccurate.

1. Continuity of Shiva worship among the Cholas

The Cholas' devotion to Shiva predates the imperial period. Sangam-era Cholas (1st–3rd centuries CE) already prominently worshipped Shiva.

-Pattinappalai (Sangam poem) praises early Chola rulers who “adorned Shiva temples with garlands and gold”.

-Pathitrupathu describes Chola kings offering worship to “Kutrala Natha” (Shiva at Kutrala temple).

Thus, the Cholas' association with Shiva was deeply ingrained in Tamil religious tradition and not a sudden medieval invention or a tactical sociopolitical adaptation.

2. Tamil literary references

-Tevaram hymns (6th–8th century CE) by Nayanmars (Appar, Sambandar, Sundarar) show widespread Shaivite devotion in Tamilakam before the Chola imperial period.

-The temples at Chidambaram, Tiruvarur, and Kanchipuram — all celebrated in Tevarams — were patronised by early Cholas and Pallavas.

3. Iconographic continuity

-Even early Pallava and pre-Chola bronze sculptures (as detailed by Sharada Srinivasan) show established Nataraja forms.

-The Cholas continued and expanded this tradition, culminating in masterpieces like the Thanjavur Brihadisvara Nataraja.

Thus, Shiva worship was not a new 'cosmic cult' adopted by the Cholas to align with Vellala interests, but a continuum from earlier Tamil traditions.

4. Correcting Kanisetti’s claims on Korravai

Kanisetti’s depiction of the decline of Korravai is also incorrect and oversimplified.

Korravai’s importance and persistence

-Sangam literature (1st–3rd century CE):

-Purananuru (Poem 9): "The warriors whose victory Korravai grants, their spears pierce the enemy fields red with blood."

-Akananuru (Poem 362): "Korravai of the spear, riding the roaring lion, grants fierce victories to those who seek her favour."

-Chola period inscriptions and shrines:

-Darasuram (Airavatesvara Temple) inscriptions (12th century CE):
Record donations and worship practices referencing Korravai separately from Durga.

-Military victories and rituals: Chola kings, including Rajaraja I and Rajendra I, invoked Korravai’s blessings before military campaigns.

-Iconographic evidence: Chola temples maintained sculptures depicting fierce lion-riding goddesses clearly identifiable with Korravai.

Conclusion for Rebuttal #8

Kanisetti’s portrayal exaggerates religious transition as total absorption and loss. In truth, Tamil religious culture under the Cholas demonstrated resilience and adaptation.

Shiva devotion predated imperial Cholas and remained central throughout. Korravai retained her fierce, local identity within a larger sacred framework.

Chola religious policy was integrative, not obliterative, nor was it driven by any need to appease the Vellala gentry. Recognising this layered religious reality is crucial to understanding Tamilakam’s cultural continuity and the true legacy of the Chola age.

Rebuttal #9 – Misrepresentation of Nisumbhasudani in Chola iconography and literature

Kanisetti's extract (from Lords of the Deccan):

"Progress was slow and there was plenty of time for Lady Kokkilai to hear stories of gods old and new: Korravai, bloodthirsty forest-maiden, Murugan, wild warrior of the hills, the spear-wielder, and Nishumbha-Sudhani, who crushed demons between her thighs — the patron goddess of her new family."

The established pre-eminence of Korravai and Murugan in Tamil tradition

Before the time of Parantaka Chola and even during the Pallava era, Korravai (an early Tamil war goddess) and Murugan (the spear-wielding god of war and youth) were already firmly entrenched in Tamil religious life.

Korravai is celebrated in early Sangam literature such as the 'Purananuru' and 'Akananuru', where she is portrayed not as a “bloodthirsty forest-maiden,” but as a majestic war deity granting victory to kings and warriors.

The Purananuru verses (e.g. Verse 240) describe Tamil kings seeking Korravai's blessings before embarking on military campaigns, indicating her importance in state rituals and royal patronage.

In Pallava-period temples (e.g. Mahabalipuram), traces of Korravai worship alongside Durga iconography exist, blending martial valour with divine protection.

Murugan was already a pan-Tamil deity by the Sangam age. Worshipped as the god of the kurinji (mountain) region, he is praised in early works like the Paripadal and Thirumurugatrupadai.

Under the Cholas, Murugan temples like Thiruchendur, Palani, and Swamimalai continued to flourish, with numerous donations recorded in inscriptions.

Thus, Kanisetti’s framing of Korravai and Murugan as somehow newly emerging or marginal figures being absorbed into Chola worship is historically inaccurate. They were already central deities deeply woven into Tamil kingship, martial ethos, and popular devotion.

Correcting the misrepresentation: The true iconography and literary depictions of Nisumbhasudani

Kanisetti's description is a severe distortion of historical and artistic realities. The portrayal of Nisumbhasudani (a form of Durga) as “crushing demons between her thighs” has no basis in any known Chola-period sculpture, inscription, or sacred Tamil or Sanskrit literature. Such a sensationalist depiction imposes modern, hyper-sexualised imaginations onto a sacred and martial deity.

1. Traditional depictions of Nisumbhasudani

In classical Tamil and Sanskrit traditions, Nisumbhasudani (Durga) is revered as the slayer of the demon brothers Sumbha and Nisumbha.

She is iconographically depicted as standing atop a lion or buffalo-demon, wielding weapons (trident, spear, sword, discus) in her many arms.

The defeat of the demons is through martial prowess — piercing, cutting, or overpowering with her lion mount — not through any bodily or sexual imagery.

2. What the primary textual sources say

-Devi Mahatmya (Markandeya Purana): Durga slays Sumbha and Nisumbha in epic battles using her divine weapons and lion mount, never through bodily entrapment.

-Tamil Bhakti literature (Tevarams, Periya Puranam): Reveres Korravai (Durga) as a fierce goddess, focusing on her valour and divine justice.

-Silpa Shastras (iconographic manuals): Prescribe dignified poses and weapon-centred depictions for Durga; no evidence of vulgar or hyper-sexual elements.

3. Chola era iconography

Chola bronzes and stone carvings portray Durga (Nisumbhasudani) standing poised with martial grace. The common motifs include slaying Mahisha (buffalo demon) with spear or trident, mounted on lion, multiple-armed and serene.

No Chola-period artwork depicts Durga using thighs or engaging in sexualised defeat of demons.

4. Scholarly evidence

Padma Kaimal (2009), Shiva Nataraja: Shifting Meanings of an Icon:
Highlights the restrained dignity and martial valour in Chola goddess depictions.

Sharada Srinivasan (2004): Notes the refined aesthetic of Chola bronzes and emphasises the absence of vulgar depictions.

David Shulman (2016), Tamil: A Biography: Discusses the Tamil devotional landscape, underscoring the valorous and protective portrayal of goddesses.

5. Corrective evidence from Devi Mahatmya

The classical Devi Mahatmya text — the primary scriptural source for the story of Shumbha and Nishumbha — clearly narrates that the Goddess defeats them through armed combat and cosmic martial power, not through any bodily or sexualised act.

Her lion mount, weapons like spear and sword, and her celestial might are consistently emphasised in every traditional account.

6. Corrective evidence from Silpa texts

Traditional South Indian Silpa Shastras such as the Shilpa Ratna and Samarangana Sutradhara prescribe detailed iconography for Goddesses like Durga (Nisumbhasudani).

These texts consistently describe her as standing victoriously over the subdued demons, wielding weapons in multiple arms, often supported by her lion mount.

There is no mention of any form of bodily entrapment or sexualised domination — only martial conquest and cosmic order are emphasised.

Conclusion for Rebuttal #9

Kanisetti’s depiction of Nisumbhasudani is baseless and sensationalist, undermining the historical dignity with which Tamil traditions portrayed their goddesses.

Chola religious art and literature emphasised valour, divine authority, and protective power. Respectful and evidence-based interpretation demands fidelity to primary sources, not the imposition of modern sensationalist narratives.

Rebuttal #10 – Misrepresentation of Parantaka Chola’s succession and the Battle of Tirupurambiyam

Kanisetti's extract (from Lords of the Deccan):

"Parantaka Chola was only a third-generation “king”. His father had managed to obtain a minor Rashtrakuta princess as a wife, a reward for callously backstabbing his allies. This left an impression on the young Parantaka, who—after his father’s battlefield death in the 890s—killed his half-brother, took the Chola throne and set about marrying women left and right."

Correcting the misrepresentation: Parantaka Chola’s succession and the Tirupurambiyam conflict

Kanisetti's description severely distorts both the succession of Parantaka Chola and the broader Chola political ascent.

1. Was Parantaka only a “third-generation king”?

-The Cholas, according to their inscriptions and copper plates (e.g. the Anbil Plates, Leiden Grant), trace their descent from the ancient Solar dynasty (Suryavamsa).

-Vijayalaya Chola is recognised historically as a reviver of Chola power, not the founder of the dynasty itself.

-Inscriptions such as the Tiruvalangadu Plates and the Leiden Grant emphasise a long line of royal ancestors, including mythical and historical kings.

-Parantaka I was thus presented as the heir to an ancient and prestigious lineage, not merely the third generation of a new dynasty.

2. No evidence of fratricide

-Swaminathan's research — which Kanisetti himself cites — only suggests the possibility of a succession conflict. No inscriptional, literary, or epigraphic evidence directly supports the claim that Parantaka murdered his half-brother.

-Parantaka's daughter was married to his half-brother Kannaradeva, suggesting continuing family alliances, not violent extermination.

3. Mischaracterisation of the Battle of Tirupurambiyam

-The Battle of Tirupurambiyam (c. 879 CE) was a major pan-Tamil conflict involving the Pallavas, Cholas, Pandyas, and other polities.

-Aditya I (Parantaka's father) fought alongside Aparajita Pallava to defeat the Pandya-led coalition.

-Later, Aditya asserted independence and defeated Aparajita, seizing the Pallava heartland.

-This transition was openly celebrated in Chola inscriptions (e.g. Tiruvalangadu Plates), not concealed as an act of betrayal.

-Describing Aditya's calculated military expansion as “backstabbing” ignores the realpolitik dynamics of medieval southern India, where shifting alliances and decisive action determined political fortunes.

4. Strategic marriages, not opportunistic backstabbing

-Royal marriages into Rashtrakuta families were standard diplomatic practice.

-Aditya I's marriage to a Rashtrakuta princess was a strategic alliance, aligning with broader geopolitical aims.

-The marriage preceded later Chola–Rashtrakuta hostilities, notably during Parantaka I's reign, showing that it did not imply permanent allegiance or servitude.

5. Aditya I did not die in battle

-No inscription or historical record indicates that Aditya I died on the battlefield. He ruled until around 907 CE and died peacefully.

-His death is commemorated by a sepulchral temple (pallipadai) built by Parantaka I at Tondaimanarrur.

-Inscriptions explicitly refer to Aditya's peaceful death and memorialisation.

Notably, Parantaka refers to his father with the title 'Tondaimanarrur Tunjiya Devar' (தொண்டைமன்னற்றுர் துன்சிய தேவர்), meaning “the lord who passed away at Tondaimanarrur,” a respectful and formal posthumous epithet used in inscriptions.

Primary evidence supporting the above

-Anbil Plates and Leiden Grant: Trace Chola genealogy to ancient mythical and historical kings.

-Tiruvalangadu Copperplates: Record Aditya I's conquest of the Pallava country.

-SII Vol. III, Tillaisthanam Inscription: Confirms Aditya's title as conqueror of Tondaimandalam.

-Historians K.A. Nilakanta Sastri and Swaminathan: Document Chola lineage, Aditya's political manoeuvres, and peaceful death.

-Pallipadai inscriptions: Confirm Aditya's memorial temple built by his son.

Conclusion for Rebuttal #10

Kanisetti’s portrayal reduces a complex, multi-actor historical transformation into a lurid narrative of betrayal and murder. His method substitutes sensationalism for sober historical analysis.

The Cholas' political ascent after Tirupurambiyam was not the consequence of opportunistic betrayal, but of legitimate military alliances, strategic marriages, administrative foresight, and dynastic continuity recorded with pride in their own inscriptions.

Far from being backstabbers, the Cholas acted within the realpolitik of medieval Tamilakam, and were celebrated in their lifetime as restorers of a great Tamil dynasty. Ignoring primary evidence and distorting motivations misleads readers and does grave injustice to the historical record.

Respecting historical sources demands careful reading, critical analyses, and the discipline to resist projecting modern cynicism onto medieval politics.

Final Word: Summarizing the Rebuttal Against Anirudh Kanisetti's Portrayal of the Cholas - "In defense of truth, tradition, and historical integrity."

This critique has systematically refuted Anirudh Kanisetti’s distorted and sensationalised portrayal of the Chola dynasty, with particular emphasis on the reign of Parantaka I.

Across ten detailed rebuttals, we have demonstrated how Kanisetti’s narrative is riddled with:

-Misrepresentations of political events (e.g., the alleged fratricide and betrayal during Parantaka's succession).

-Inaccurate or exaggerated depictions of religious and cultural shifts (e.g., mischaracterisation of Korravai, Murugan, and Nisumbhasudani)

-Oversimplified and Eurocentric assessments of temple economy and Nadu Nadu assemblies

-Downplaying the Chola naval prowess and economic organisation

-Sensationalist, sexually charged, and offensive descriptions of Hindu iconography without basis in primary sculpture, silpa texts, or inscriptions

Each rebuttal carefully examined the primary inscriptional, archaeological, and scholarly records to show that:

-Chola kings traced and asserted a proud and ancient lineage, documented in the Anbil Plates, Leiden Grant, and Tiruvalangadu Plates.

-Parantaka I's reign was one of expansion, administrative consolidation, and temple-building, not courtly murder and treachery.

-Temples under the Cholas were vital centers of economy, education, and public welfare, not mere symbols of royal ego.

-Nadu assemblies were highly organised but operated within the broader framework of royal supervision.

-Chola maritime expeditions were deliberate, state-led military endeavours, not random merchant activities.

-The worship of Korravai, Murugan, and other deities flourished throughout the Chola period, rooted in Tamil tradition.

-Iconographic traditions like that of Nisumbhasudani were deeply sacred and are misrepresented by Kanisetti’s descriptions.

We contrasted Kanisetti's assertions with the work of respected scholars such as:

-K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, who wrote in The Cholas (1955): "Parantaka I was a ruler of considerable energy and enterprise. His reign marked a stage of rapid Chola expansion and consolidation, laying the groundwork for the later imperial conquests of Rajaraja I and Rajendra I."

-S. Swaminathan, who in Chola Temples: Art and Administration (2019), observed: "Parantaka I was an outstanding monarch whose administrative acumen and temple endowments stabilized the agrarian economy and established the cultural hegemony of the Cholas across Tamilakam."

-S.R. Balasubrahmanyam, whoin Early Chola Art (1966), noted: "It was under Parantaka I that the foundations of what was to become the Chola style in temple architecture were firmly laid... His patronage reveals a monarch deeply committed to religion, art, and governance."

These historians relied on direct study of inscriptions, temple records, and archaeological evidence. Their interpretations were based on the careful piecing together of facts, not speculative storytelling.

In stark contrast, while Anirudh Kanisetti outwardly claims to glorify the Cholas and introduce them to modern readers, his actual narrative employs:

-Misleading extrapolations based on isolated or fragmentary evidence,

-Sensationalist inferences unsupported by primary sources,

-Selective citation practices that ignore contradictory evidence,

-Modern ideological cynicism projected onto medieval events.

This leads to a portrayal that trivialises the immense achievements of the Cholas in polity, economy, temple culture, and diplomacy.

Rather than offering a fresh and balanced retelling, the work ends up diminishing the nuanced legacy of one of Indian subcontinent’s greatest dynasties.

A genuine engagement with Chola history must uphold the complexity, depth, and resilience reflected in their records — an endeavour which demands both scholarly rigour and intellectual integrity.

The Cholas deserve better — and so does history.