Talk:Pandyan dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Pandyan Dynasty)
Jump to: navigation, search

Indian Kingdoms and Borders, 600 AD[edit]

Unknown map source, India in 600 AD

I have 2 different source maps for the borders of India, circa 600 AD, and they both show major differences. The first map's source is listed, I don't remember my source for the 2nd map. Also, looking at the map of India in 586 AD, it is also different from these 2 maps. Which of these maps shows the correct borders for India in 600 AD? Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

Hi folks,

I've protected this page for a week due to edit warring. Please use the time to discuss what should and should not be on the page, and when the protection expires, please ensure you maintain civility and do not use edit summaries to carry on discussions or accusations of bad behaviour. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war reported[edit]

The recent edits to this article concern me. The article page was blocked for one week to allow you good people time to resolve your differences civilly. Instead, nothing was posted on this talk page at all. So now the block has been lifted, what do you do? You start back with your edit war and name calling. I have reported this to the administrators, who will be along to lookin on things and take whatever action. But before they arrive, I want to say a few things.

I'm sorry to have to say this to you all, but you are all behaving like a bunch of children all wanting their own way. I am sure that you each want the best for the article, but that is not the impression you are giving! Please, I ask of each of you editors, please read the Wikipedia article on Assuming good faith. Then,please look at the edits that the others are doing, but instead of taking the stance that they are wrong, look at the edits with the assumption that the editor wants to improve the article.

Having done that, before you make any further edits on the page,please discuss IN A CIVIL MANNER on this talk page what exactly it is about their edit that you disagree with. But before you do discuss, read Wikipedia's stance on Civility. When you've read the article, go back and read it again.

Now, when someone posts a comment in disagreement with your stance on the article, write a response on Microsoft Word, or the text editor of your choice, and save it. Do not post it on the talkpage yet. Wait 24 hours, and then re-read your response. By then, you will hopefully have cooled down. Now, edit out any comments that could be concidered inflammatory or insulting. Only then should you copy and paste the text onto this page.

We all want Wikipedia to improve - insulting each other is not the way to do it. Please calm down. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another article I thorougly recommend you all read - and make use of - is the dispute resolution page. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As the protecting admin (with no particular views on the current dispute either way), I'd just like to second Stephen's comments. You need to discuss this *here* without flaming each other. Keep this up and blocks *will* be handed out on both sides. Comments in edit summaries such as this, this and this are completely unacceptable. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious why at least two groups would get into an edit war over an article about ancient kingdom: does this extinct state have some value to modern groups? If so, a section about its role in modern times might not only diffuse some of the conflict over this article -- but help the average reader understand the importance of this kingdom. -- llywrch (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a cursory look. People from two castes seem to want to establish that they're the descendants of Pandya Kings. I come from this region and've previously heard of such claims from one of these castes, but the other claim rings new to me. My suggestion would be that any of or both the claims can be allowed only if someone cites a reliable source. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source for the statement that these two castes trace their origins to these kings, or one that shows their origins are from these kings? I hope you mean the second, even though we may disagree what would be a reliable source. In any case, at least now this dispute has a context. -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Black magic[edit]

This sounds like it has more viewpoint than cogency: "Many chiefs keeping up the trend of that age all over the world, were not only corrupt and irresponsible but also displayed their evil tendencies when they allowed and supported the revival of obscure and occult practices(like black magic and manipulation) that had stayed strictly banned since early pallava period." But what is the "black magic and manipulation" that they refer to? (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV Template[edit]

Removed POV template showing the kingdoms of Northern India as Empires, and kingdoms of Southern India as dynasties. No evidence as to whether all Northern kingdoms were Empires, while all Southern kingdoms were dynasties. Ashoka kingdom of Northern India is an Empire since it has controlled everything in South Asia outside its boundaries accept for Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka. While the Cholas of Southern India is also an Empire stretching from South India to Sri Lanka, Maldives, Malaysia, Sumatra, and Java with its Navies. "Middle Kingdoms of India" template shows only bias towards Indo-Aryan kingdoms, and also making it seem that the Indian Union existed for thousands of years. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Raja with due respect i want to make a request plz keep away your belive of Aryan Draviden culture.There is no avidance that arya is a tribe and Dravid just mean south Dakshin not a tribe. North and South Indian launguge is difftant it does not mean we are diffrint people.In north the Panjabis and the Bihari are so diffrent in culture that if we where not in a union of india we where like Alians to each other.For example Bangladesh and Pakistan. After becoming a nation they are no longer remain near to indian culture although they are indian people in culture launguage.My thought is same on Tamil elaim like you but now after reading your post i get to know why with all the sacrifice and bravery it never become a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not answer Raja's comment. Admins, please solve this doubt. (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Raghav Sharman

Date of establishment[edit]

The theory that the Pandyan Dynasty started in 5th or 6th century BC originated through Wilson's commentary on the Mackenzie collection. This fact can be ascertained and understood through the following reference,

Page vi, Mackenzie collection: a descriptive catalogue of the oriental manuscripts and other articles illustrative of the literature, history, statistics and antiquities of the south of India collected by the late Lieut.-Col. Colin Mackenzie, surveyor general of India, Volume 1

But, I have tried analyzing his comments and found that he has condensed 72 generation in 1500 years, which simply can't be taken as true for the Indian subcontinent. Even foreigners like Mughals lasted on an average 30 years per generation. For native dynasties like the Pandyan, the figure should be definitely more than 30 years per generation. Thus, my contention is that we have to take at least close to 30 years per generation and that would take us to 1000 BC nearly. This is a conservative view as well when we consider the Pages xxiv & xxv of the same work as mentioned above. 357 generations would very easily translate into 10000 years. Makes sense when we consider that the dynasty finds mention in early works like the Valmiki Ramayan as well. Regards Rorkadian (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology is wrong[edit]

This word should be splitted as Paa+Aand+Iyan (Sea+Ruled+knows thoroughly), Iyan is a term that refer to a person who knows his field well as in Aa+seer+Iyan. so Pandyans means "Kings who knows the sea well", their flag symbol is "Fish" and they have distant trade connections by sea. "Paa" is a word in Tamil that connects with sea,river,liquid,flow etc. like in words like "Paanai,Paalam,Paasanam,Paar,Paattu,Paal etc. I have no references for my translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talkcontribs) 15:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is your own theory/research, we cannot add them per WP:OR. If you can find a published reliable source we can add it.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
No Problems, I know The Wikipedia rules, that's the reason, I am starting this discussion. I am not a Tamil expert either, lets wait if someone comes with a published source or I will try :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talkcontribs) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of the word Pandya and the origin of the Pandyan Kingdoms:

The word ’Pandya’ is closely connected with the Sanskrit word Panditah and the Hindi word ‘ Pandey’. The Oriya word ‘Panda’ is also connected to this word. The Sanskrit word Panditah means ‘a scholar’. According to the Wikipedia article on ‘Pandey’ it is the surname of the Hindu Brahmin communities of Northern and central India. But more importantly it is the surname of the Chhetri families of Nepal. The word ‘Chhetri’ is derived from the Sanskrit word Kshatriya, the warrior caste of the Hindu communities.(Wikipedia article on Pandey) Thus the Pandeys of Nepal appear to belong to a Brahmin class which had adopted war-like qualities of a Kshatria. A list of renowned Pandeys of Nepal is available in the above article. From the list it can be seen that Sri Damodar pandey was the first prime-minister of Nepal. Mahendra Bahadur Pandey and Surendra Pandey were prominent politicians of Nepal. The article also mentions that the word ‘Pandey’ according to some scholars is believed to be derived from the word ‘Pandya’ the oldest dynasty of South India. Thus it appears that there is a close connection between the Pandeys of North India, especially the Chhetri Pandeys of Nepal and the’ Pandyas’ of the South.

It can also be seen that the Pandyas were closely connected with the Mauryan emperors and also the Buddhist religion. The name of the daughter of Malaya Dhwaja (or Malava Dhwaja) Pandey was Tathagathai.’ Tathagat’ is the other name of Lord Buddha. Close association of the Pandyas with the emperor Ashoka is also self-evident. Ashoka ruled over the Indian subcontinent (250 210 B.C.) came up to the river Pennar in southern Andhra, which was the border of the Chola kingdom. But he did not proceed further. If he wanted he could have conquered the South Indian kingdoms- the Chola, the Pandya and the Chera kingdoms in no time. But he went back calling them as’’ Cheria putras or’ chelia putras’ (sons of royal housemaids). However he accepted pearls, gold, elephants etc. as tributes from them. After all his entire grandfather Chandragupta Maurya was also a son of the housemaid named Mura. Ashoka had already killed 99 of his half-brothers at Pataliputra to ascend the throne. He had spared the life of one brother only, as he named himself Tissa Kumara and became a Buddhist monk. It appears that this Tissa had been deputed to Sri Lanka to rule as a king there. A Sri Lankan King named Devanampriya Tissa (250 B.C.-210 B.C.) was a contemporary and also a close associate of emperor Ashoka. In fact the title ‘Devanampriya’ was the title adopted by emperor Ashoka.

The Chinese historian   in his 3rd century text mentions that the Pandya kings were of the same height as the Chinese. He also called their kingdom ’Panyue’ a name which is closer to the word Pandey. 

Devanampriya Tissa also called as Moggaliputta Tissa (Son of a maid called Moggali) convened the third Buddhist council in consultation with emperor Ashoka. Also Ashoka sent his daughter sangaqmitra and son Mahendra to Sri Lanka at the request of the Sri Lankan King. They had also gone to to some other south-east Asian islands to spread Buddhism among the womenfolk of these kingdoms. (Wikipedia- Sangamitta). All this would not have been possible without the active co-operation of the Pandya kings. Thus it looks that the Pandyan and the Sri Lankan kings of that age were closely related to emperor Ashoka and that they had earlier worked as commanders of different battalions in the Mauryan army. The name of the Sri Lankan King 'Gaja bahu gamani' which is purely a Sanskrit word means ( Gaja = elephant, bahu = shoulder, gamani = one who marches)- the commander of the elephant battalion which flanked the royal chariot. ‘Raja ratha’ which means the royal chariot, is also the name of the palace or the capital of the Sri Lanka Kingdom.. No wonder the early Pandyas took part in the Mahabharat war which seems to have been fought during the period between the invasion of Alexander the Great in 326 B.C.E. and the invasion of Seleucus Nicator during 303 B.C.E. At the end of this war which was called Mahabharat, it looks like that Chandra Gupta Maurya emerged as the sole monarch of India and faced Seleucids with great authority.( According to some scholars Chandra Gupta Maurya was none other than Lord Krishna. It is also said that the word ‘ Gupta’ means a 'secret', and this has been kept in place of the name Krishna. (Reference- KRSNA – by Swami Bhakti Vedanta Prabhupada ).This also explains the fact that Krishna and Arjuna married the daughters of the Pandya Kings. The fact that many Tamil Naga tribes migrated to the Pandya Kingdom and started living there during that period also proves the fact that the Pandyas were connected to the Naga tribes of Nepal and Bhutan. It looks as if they were the sons of the Mauryan- housemaids who belonged to the caste of Chhetri Pandeys of Nepal. The early Pandya kingdom went into obscurity during the fourth or fifth century because of the invasion of the Kalabhras.

As far as the Pandyas of the 13th and 14th century A.D. are concerned it is reported that 

that the Pandyan kingdom entered its golden age during the reign of Mara Varman sunder Pandya and Jata Varman Sundara Pandya during 1216 A.D.-1345 A.D. It is also reported that these people were repeatedly in conflict with the Chola kingdom, the Pallavas , the Hoysalas,and also conquered Sri Lanka which was once upon a time a close friend of the Pandyas. The name Mara Varman resembles the name Malava Varman which means that he considered himself as the king of Malwa, who adopted the surname ‘Varman’of the Kshatriyas. Similarly the name Jata Varman suggests that they were Jats who called themselves Kshatriyas. The Jats originally belonged to the Sindh and Panjab provinces that migrated to Rajasthan and central India after the invasion of Alexander the Great. (Wikipedia Jats ) Malwa kingdom was ruled by the Mauryas in recorded history of India. (Wikipedia- Malwa ). Thus it looks like that these latter Pandyas originally belonged to ‘Malwa' and they were Jats. ( These Malwa kings who ruled over the Pandyan kingdom are mentioned in the Mahabharat ,Book 6 , Chapter 10, where Sanjaya informs the king Dhritarashtra about various kingdoms of the Bharavarsha. Coming to the kingdoms of the south he mentions - Dravidas. The Keralas, the Prachyas, ------- the Cholas and the Malavajakas,---and the Malavas. There is no mention of the Pandya kingdom in the list.(Ref: Parva -Mahabharata/Book 6, Chapter 10).

Thus in conclusion it can be said that the early Pandyas who were the contemporaries of Chandra Gupta Maurya and emperor Ashoka belonged to the Chhetri Brahmin community of Nepal. They were the Children of those house maids of the Mauryan palace who belonged to the above caste. They were deployed as commanders of various battalions of the Mauryan army initially. No wonder they boasted about their achievements in the various wars fought by Maurya chandra Guta in the North-West Himalayan region. They might have also participated in the Mahabharata War on behalf of Krishna Chandra Maurya. They were later deputed by the Magadh emperor to take care of the pearl trade on the southern tip of the sub-continent. The Sri Lankan kings of those days belonged to the same caste or community,because there were inter-marriages between them. The Pandyan kingdom seems to have regained its strength during the eleventh century by the Jat kings of Malwa/Malva named Mara Varman/Malwa Varman and Jat Varman. That is why they were in constant conflict with the ancient kingdoms of Chola, Pallava, Hoyasala, Telugu Kingdom and the Kalinga. They appear to have conquered even Sri Lanka also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banda.krishna (talkcontribs) 15:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Fanciful etymology. The Pandyas have nothing to do with the Pandeys. They, obviously, had some relation to the Pandavas - "Pandya" becoming "Pandava" just as "Ayodhya" became "Awadh". The name Jatavarman which is spelt as Sadayavarman has nothing to do with the Jats of North India. The story of a Mauryan Empire sending Nepali Brahmins to South India is not found in any reputable history book. I wonder where you got it.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The website jatland is not a neutral academic source to be used. By the way, where did Malwa come into the picture. Were these theories proposed by P. N. Oak?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

when did Marco Polo came to india.[edit]

Is their any other source which say moco polo came to india. And look what he says and how deep he undurstand the war between Aryan and dravidens. I must say this can be a great creation of a English schlore.In your word do you have eny secular book which say marco polo travel to south india.This what western people grow up learning.-- (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is seriously doubting Marco polo's trip to South India, unless there is a source that specifically doubts his accounts, they can be included in the article. I see you have been already advised in your talk page to read up on wikipedia's core policies. Please read them again and stop removing text that doesnt confirm with your world view.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Who are no one for you It is said that he naver traveled so far.and if he came this he has to seem west does not doubt so no one you mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talkcontribs) 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources to back up your theories and notions, list them here. If else stop putting out conspiracy theories here. Wikipedia is not the place to start new speculations - Read WP:OR. I have sourced the part that deals with marco polo now. Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts this, we are done here--Sodabottle (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok fine i will come to you with your reliable sources.Their is nothing like done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talkcontribs) 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 

thanks Sandhyanathtiwari (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

when did Marco Polo came to india.[edit]

Is their any other source which say moco polo came to india. And look what he says and how deep he undurstand the war between Aryan and dravidens. I must say this can be a great creation of a English schlore.In your word do you have eny secular book which say marco polo travel to south india.This what western people grow up learning.--Nkatyan (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This area of Wikipedia is written in English. Respectfully, you perhaps need to learn English more comprehensively before you post here, and also learn basic formatting. In reply to your slightly confusing question (which you have posted twice), it is generally accepted that Marco Polo visited many places, including South India. It is hard to understand why this is difficult for you to accept: you talk of 'Western people" and question their education, yet you offer no proof to the contrary that Polo did not visit South India. The onus of proof is on you to disprove the received wisdom that Polo visited South India. When there is a wealth of evidence to back up historical fact, those that question it have to do so by presenting evidence in a new light. You have every right to question history, but you must do it with objective rigour (and at least a vague grasp of the language you choose to do it in).


It says in the article that from being Jains in their early ages, Pandiyans became Shaivaites after some centuries of rule. I have heard in various discourses about Hindu Pandyas mentioned in Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa (I think I saw a mention in the English translation by Kale), Valmeeki's Ramayana (haven't read it), Mahabharata of Veda Vyasa (Ganguli's translation), etc. I recently found an example here:

(Refer Indradyumna Pandiyan belonged to the lineage of Svayambhuva Manu, the very first Manu. 2 of the early Tirthankaras are ascribed to the Ikshvaku Dynasty (Ikshvaku was born manvantaras after Svayambhuva Manu), I can't find any clear evidence to establish the claim that Pandiyans were Jains in the beginning. It's clear that they were Jains at some point, but where does it say that they were Jains from the very beginning, when according to Historians, Jainism is newer than Hinduism? "Shramana also gave rise to Jainism", says wiki's article on Hinduism.

I don't believe much in these historical dates, since research is always active and they might change the attributed date tomorrow if they unearth some evidence which shows the religion as being much older. Unfortunately, I see that on many pages on Wikipedia people link religions and myths with history and deviate from truth by doing so.

I will try to find out about the legitimacy of the sources in Britannica, which has been mentioned as the reference-site here. In the meantime, I would be extremely happy to get an answer to my doubt. Thank you.

-- Srinath Ravi

Hi, Puranic evidence may not be history. Mangulam Inscription (300 B.C.) shows that Nedunacheziyan was a Jain. As well as Peruvazhudhi Coins in same age show that Pnadyan followed Vedic Practices. --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Ramayana not centuries older than that? The earliest references don't seem to point to the Jain origin of Pandiyas. I'm yet to verify Britannica's legitimacy. (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Srinath Ravi

Ramayana is an Epic and Belief. In wikipedia point of view Epic won't considered to be an evidence. But Brahmi Inscripted Jain beds and Peruvazhudi coins are archaeological proof's to argue Pandyas followed Jain and Vedic Practices in Same period.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Timing of Events[edit]

The second paragraph starts with this sentence: The early Pandyan Dynasty of the Sangam Literature faded into obscurity upon the invasion of the Kalabhras. This sentence could really use a date. If not an exact year, then at least a century.

Also, at the start, it says the Dynasty lasted to the 17th century, but elsewhere it says that the "kingdom" was disestablished in 1345. The History section only goes to the 14th century. This could use some clarification.

MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pandyan Dynasty[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pandyan Dynasty's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lindsay1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 15:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pandyan dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

State language[edit]

There seem to be none consensus about the languages used by Pandyan dynasty. The question is if Sanskrit and Prakrit was a language also used by the Pandyan dynasty. The given source [1] does not directly confirm that, or at least I could not find anything such. The problem should be discussed here before adding anything in article and unnecessary creating an edit war. Xenani (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it is not about official state language. That section need to list all common languages. As per source Sanskrit is being used in inscriptions. I haven't seen any Prakrit related inscriptions in the cited source. If you find any source saying Prakrit had been used, you can add Prakrit too. aggi007(talk) 09:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


Sanskrit definitely finds a place in Pandyan inscriptions:

  • "Kings of the Chola and Pandya dynasties also issued Tamil and bilingual Sanskrit-Tamil inscriptions."[2]
  • "Thus the state language was Sanskrit whether the inscriptions were from the north or the south and whether the dynasty was Gupta, Vakatak, Vardhana, Maukhari, Pratihara, Paramara, Chandella, Pala, Sena, Gahadavala, Haihaya, Ganga, Pallava, Chola, Pandya, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, or Vijayanagar. Inscriptions were sometimes written in regional languages, but they invariably had a preface in Sanskrit."[3]

Not sure about Prakrit. utcursch | talk 15:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


Suggesting for removal of unnecessary content[edit]

I think the part under the section "Sources" under "Sangam literature" has some content that is not related to article that I suggest could be removed. I am thinking of the content starting from "It is difficult to estimate..." to "some historians have even denounced these colophons as later additions and untrustworthy as historical documents". I think the whole part, which is not sourced, is not anyway related to the article and could be removed but I think it is better to discuss it here before removal at least. I think there are better content related to the article that would suit under "Sangam literature" instead.Xenani (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)