Talk:Western Chalukya Empire/Archive 1

Removal of unsourced, scurrilous content, included merely for the purpose of making the article longer

Dear fellow contributors and mediators, for the benefit of all, I am copying below the entire text under the heading "Economy" in this article. I would like to know what it is doing here when the all the text is devoted to what happened or was done by the Ayyavole (Aihole) Swamis, artisans named below creations of Hoysala architecture, mention about other kingdoms like Cheras, Pandyas etc. etc. by the Aihole Swamis. It is even more illuminating to note that the exhaustive content devoted to merely naming far off places like Baghdad, Dhofar, Aden etc. are all centres with which traders from Pandyas, Chera and other Kingdoms went to trade and these are the very places with which the Western Chalukyas had PRACTICALLY NOTHING TO DO!! The reason is not far to see, the Western parts of Karnataka, Kerala and the Goa/Maharashtra region were either under the control of the Kadambas of Banavasi or under the Moriyas of Revatidwipa (Goa) who controlled the Sahyadri, Konkan coasts. Please read the article again and judge for yourself, folks: Economy

Parapet wall relief carvings at Kedareswara Temple in Balligavi, Shimoga district Agriculture was the empire's main source of income through taxes on land and produce. The majority of the people lived in villages and worked farming the staple crops of rice, pulses, and cotton in the dry areas and sugarcane in areas having sufficient rainfall, with areca and betel being the chief cash crops. The living conditions of the labourers who farmed the land must have been bearable as there are no records of revolts by the landless against wealthy landlords. If peasants were disgruntled the common practice was to migrate in large numbers out of the jurisdiction of the ruler who was mistreating them, thereby depriving him of revenue from their labor.[57] Taxes were levied on mining and forest products, and additional income was raised through tolls for the use of transportation facilities. The state also collected fees from customs, professional licenses, and judicial fines.[58] Records show horses and salt were taxed as well as commodities (gold, textiles, perfumes) and agricultural produce (black pepper, paddy, spices, betel leaves, palm leaves, coconuts and sugar). Land tax assessment was based on frequent surveys evaluating the quality of land and the type of produce. Chalukya records specifically mention black soil and red soil lands in addition to wetland, dry land and wasteland in determining taxation rates.[59] Part of a series on the History of Karnataka

Political history of medieval Karnataka

Origin of Karnataka's name Kadambas and Gangas Chalukya Empire Rashtrakuta Empire Western Chalukya Empire Southern Kalachuri Hoysala Empire Vijayanagara Empire Bahmani Sultanate Bijapur Sultanate Kingdom of Mysore Unification of Karnataka Societies Economies Architectures Forts This box: view • talk • edit Key figures mentioned in inscriptions from rural areas were the Gavundas (officials) or Goudas. The Gavundas belonged to two levels of economic strata, the Praja Gavunda (people's Gavunda) and the Prabhu Gavunda (lord of Gavundas). They served the dual purpose of representing the people before the rulers as well as functioning as state appointees for tax collection and the raising of militias. They are mentioned in inscriptions related to land transactions, irrigation maintenance, village tax collection and village council duties.[60] The organisation of corporate enterprises became common in the 11th century.[61] Almost all arts and crafts were organised into guilds and work was done on a corporate basis; records do not mention individual artists, sculptors and craftsman. Only in the regions ruled by the Hoysala did individual sculptors etched their names below their creations.[62] Merchants organised themselves into powerful guilds that transcended political divisions, allowing their operations to be largely unaffected by wars and revolutions. Their only threat was the possibility of theft from brigands when their ships and caravans traveled to distant lands. Powerful South Indian merchant guilds included the Manigramam, the Nagarattar and the Anjuvannam. Local guilds were called nagaram, while the Nanadesis were traders from neighbouring kingdoms who perhaps mixed business with pleasure. The wealthiest and most influential and celebrated of all South Indian merchant guilds was the self styled Ainnurruvar, also known as the 500 Svamis of Ayyavolepura (Brahmins and Mahajanas of present day Aihole),[63][64] who conducted extensive land and sea trade and thereby contributed significantly to the total foreign trade of the empire. It fiercely protected its trade obligations (Vira Bananjudharma or law of the noble merchants) and its members often recorded their achievements in inscriptions called Prasasti. Five hundred such excavated Prasasti inscriptions, with their own flag and the bull as their emblem, record their pride in their business. Rich traders contributed significantly to the king's treasury through paying import and export taxes. The edicts of the Aihole Svamis mention trade ties with foreign kingdoms such as Chera, Pandya, Maleya (Malayasia), Magadh, Kaushal, Saurashtra, Kurumba, Kambhoja (Cambodia), Lata (Gujarat), Parasa (Persia) and Nepal. Travelling both land and sea routes, these merchants traded mostly in precious stones, spices and perfumes, and other specialty items such as camphor. Business flourished in precious stones such as diamonds, lapis lazuli, onyx, topaz, carbuncles and emeralds. Commonly traded spices were cardamom, saffron, and cloves, while perfumes included the by-products of sandalwood, bdellium, musk, civet and rose. These items were sold either in bulk or hawked on streets by local merchants in towns.[65]

The Western Chalukyas controlled most of South India's west coast and by the 10th century they had established extensive trade ties with the Tang Empire of China, the empires of Southeast Asia and the Abbasid Caliphate in Bhagdad, and by the 12th century Chinese fleets were frequenting Indian ports. Exports to Song Dynasty China included textiles, spices, medicinal plants, jewels, ivory, rhino horn, ebony and camphor. The same products also reached ports in the west such as Dhofar and Aden. The final destinations for those trading with the west were Persia, Arabia and Egypt.[66] The thriving trade center of Siraf, a port on the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf, served an international clientele of merchants including those from the Chalukya empire who were feasted by wealthy local merchants during business visits. An indicator of the Indian merchants' importance in Siraf comes from records describing dining plates reserved for them.[67] In addition to this, Siraf received aloe wood, perfumes, sandalwood and condiments. The most expensive import to South India were Arabian horse shipments, this trade being monopolised by Arabs and local Brahmin merchants. Thirteenth century traveler Marco Polo recorded that the breeding of horses never succeeded in India due to differing climatic, soil and grassland conditions.[66]

Folks, see the above portion: blatantly copied from "A History of South India" (2003) by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, page 302:

The original text at the start of the page reads thus:

"By the ninth century AD the countries of southern Asia had developed extensive maritime commerce which brou8ght great prosperity. The T'ang empire in China, Sri Vijaya under the powerful line of the Sailendras, and the Abbasid Khalifat at Baghdad were the chief states outside India that flourished on this trade.

In the text in the article the words "ninth century AD" and Sri Vijaya have been replaced by the words "The Western Chalukyas controlled most of ............ and "empires of Southeast Asia". Also the quotation about Marco Polo commenting about horse-breeding was made by him on witnessing the prevailing conditions in the Pandyan empire and had again NOTHING TO DO WITH WESTERN CHALUKYAS.

Hence I am deleting substantial portions of the unsolicited and unsourced POV material from the article.

Srirangam99 (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi

कल्याणी चालुक्य राजा सोमेश्वर यांच्या 'मानसोल्लास' (११२९) या ग्रंथातील मराठी गीते म्हणजे मराठी वाड़्मयाच्या आरंभकालीन पाऊलखूणाच म्हटल्य पाहिजेत.

Marathi songs in Kalyani chalukya king Someshwar's Manasollas (1129) should be termed as stepping stone of Marathi literature. 59.95.28.231 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citatons and decency

This is an English language wikipedia and citations should be in English for all to read. This article is not meant just for people proficient in Marathi to read. Please bear this basic decency and learn to live by the rules of wikipedia.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi citation

Based on advice by admin:utcursch, I have removed marathi citation as English citation exists.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addition of both citations will not 'destroy' the article. Any ill-comments or actions about Marathi will be taken very seriously. Vishu123 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

morever the 'stepping stone' thing has not mentioned in the Eng citationVishu123

Remove POV text as well as use of superlatives

I have again removed an unsourced POV content which spoke about "convincingly eclipsing the Cholas". There is not a single author who used the expression "convincingly eclipsed the Cholas". Mention is only made about Anantapala occupying Vengi territories for 6 or 7 years from 1117. The originator of the article has cleverly hidden the fact about recovery of Vengi by the Cholas from the Chalukyas and about the complete decline of the Chalukyas from 1149 AD onwards (read History of South India by K.A.N. Sastri, page 179).

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated in the article that it was during the times of Vikramaditya VI that the Western Chalukyas completely eclipsed the Cholas. Can anything be farther from the truth? Considering that the Western Chalukyas as per known sources never occupied any part of Chola territory especially in Tamizhagam, no doubt the victory at Vengi would be regarded as important in Chalukya annals. But this victory lasted only 6 years and the Cholas under Vikrama Chola re-occupied Vengi in 1127-28 and right from the times of Vikrama chola till Kulothunga III 1176-1218, the Cholas never gave up control of both Vengi and Kalinga. In fact Kulothunga III is credited with the conquests of Karuvur (Karur) in Kongu nadu, Madurai, Ilam (Sri Lanka) and Kalinga and it is in commemoration of re-enforcing Chola control of Kalinga by him along with the Vengi king that he built the Kampahareswarar temple near Kumbakonam. You have (in your list of photographs), displayed the Srirangapatnam Temple showing its inscriptions and history of it having been initially built by Tirumalaraya and with later additions to the temple having been made by the Hoysalas and Vijayanagara kings. Similar evidence is displayed outside the Kampahareswarar temple.

what I mean is that a victory for just 6 years never meant convincing eclipsing of the Chola empires and it amounts to propagation of POV, is posting of texts detrimental to the rivals of the Chalukyas and to empires and people of non-Kannada country origin. Hence this portion of text should be removed immediately.

The fact of history is that within two decades of Vikramaditya VI's death there was complete instability in the Chalukya territories with the capital itself being occupied for close to three decades from around 1155 onwards by the Kalachuri kings, with other feudatories like the Nolambas and the Hoysalas rapidly gaining strength at the cost of the Chalukyas in Kannada country.

Another objectionable portion is the mention of events around the end of the 12th century where is mentioned very wrongly and inaccurately, perhaps with malicious intent that the concerned period saw the demise of both the Chalukyas and the Cholas with a further deliberate and maliciously intended insertion "with the parts of the Chola territories being occupied by the Pandiyans".

I want to ask that indeed the Chalukyas ceased to exist having existed for namesake from about 1175 onwards and finally being routed by the Hoysalas, Seunas and the Kalachuris with probably the Kalachuris emerging the strongest in this tripartite struggle for supremacy. Later of course Hoysalas created a separate domain for themselves mainly in the southwestern parts of Kannada country.

So if the Chalukyas ceased to exist in 1189 and were defeated by three other kingdoms viz. Hoysalas, Seunas and Kalachuris, where is the need or what is the justifiable context for mentioning the Cholas. For the Cholas continued to exist well into the last quarter of the 13th century, though they had been weakened very much by the growing power of the Pandiyans in Tamizhagam with their alliance with the Hoysalas itself eventually succumbing to Maravarman, Jatavarman Pandiyan by 1250-1260 AD. So one empire ceases to exist (which is the Chalukyas, the main subject of this topic) in 1189 with the Cholas collapsing only in 1279, what is the need, justification or context of mentioning that the Cholas and Chalukyas collapsed with Chola territories being occupied by Pandiyans?

When considering that this article is an FA, the insertion of derisive, malicious deliberate content with a penchant for always seeking the Chalukyas or Hoysalas to compare with the Cholas on the presumption that mentioning Chalukyas only on adversarial terms but not contemporaneous terms will only enhance their glory, seems very erroneous.

The above two objectionable POV texts should immediately be reviewed by the FAR panel/committee and determine as to whether those portions being objected to by me, deserve retention in this article.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warring for a month without one single reputable book source. Why is it so hard understand?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made with reasons

Forget about edit wars.... is there a single historian who denies that the Chalukya empire weakened after Vikramaditya with them losing both Vengi to Vikrama Chola and their capital itself being occupied for over 30 years from 1140-45 AD? So who gets convincingly eclipsed? Not the Cholas but the Chalukyas themselves... Kindly read books by Roychowdhury (Ancient India, 1956) where these facts have been given in detail.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

= What proof that the Kakatiyas were subordinates of the Chalukyas

Here is the link to the Kakatiya dynasty on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakatiya_dynasty. Where is the proof in the article or otherwise that the Kakatiyas were subordinates to the Chalukyas and gained their independence only when the Chalukya power waned.

Both the above claims are absolute lies. So I have deleted the term Kakatiyas (in fact there is no proof either that the Kalachuris too were subordinates of the Chalukyas, the Hoysalas certainly were) from the list of imaginary "subordinates" of the Chalukyas.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more correction

As is accepted by any historian or student of history, the Chalukyas demised in 1189-90 with the Cholas continuing for another 90 years to be exact. The last great Chola king Kulothunga III is supposed to have conquered Karuvur, Pandiyan Kingdom (along with Veera Ballala II) and Ilangai (Sri Lanka) and ruled upto 1218 when he was defeated by the Pandiyans. He too had several successors but they were all weak except perhaps for Rajadhiraja-II (or Rajadhiraja III), who is supposed to have defeated a confederation of five Pandiyan princes. It is also undeniable that the Pandiyans repeatedly routed the Cholas several times over as well as the Hoysalas between 1220-1260 AD and ultimately caused not just the extinction of the Cholas but also the removal of the Hoysalas from Tamizhagam and even occupying Konkana Rajya where inscriptions of Jatavarman Vira Pandiyan are found even today.

So mentioning of the Pandiyans in the page on the Western Chalukyas, (who first of all had nothing to do with the Chalukyas), but who might indeed have caused the demise of the Cholas, but even that had nothing to do with the demise of the Western Chalukyas almost 100 years ago is completely misplaced and I have deleted the same. The article should basically confine itself only to the establishing and growth of the Chalukya dynasty, its achievements in various fields and ultimately its demise. There is no need of mentioning the demise of the Cholas in this page at least for the Chalukya chapter ends in and around 1189-90.

We may like it or not (but truth must be faced, not jingoism in the name of building a 'history' page, by somehow seeking to 'justify' the demise of the Chalukyas by equating the same with the demise of the Cholas which occurred much later. Though the demise of the Chalukyas can indeed be mentioned in the Chola pages for they lasted up to 1279-1285, mentioning of the demise of the Cholas which occurs (to repeat in case facts are not being registered and there is hesitancy in facing up to the absolute truth) many, many years i.e. it is a full 9 decades after the Chalukyas is throughly and absolutely misplaced and therefore, has been removed by me.

If interested, anyone can discuss the issue with me on this page.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss without your sources. Bring sources, not your opinions or be prepared to face admins.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see the sources, kindly read Ancient India by K.A.N.Sastri as well as the book of the same name by Roychowdhury. It is available at any good library book. I do have a good library in my town, what about yours... hence the reversion.

Srirangam99 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I suggest you refrain from changes without discussion. Open a discussion thread, call arbiters, bring sources with page numbers, publication info etc. You cannot remove cited info just because your author (if any) gives a different version. This is how wiki works.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean that the info that you 'cite' is the only source of correct information. If as you say the author read by me gives a different version, then certainly even that version should be given space.... or is it just a one way ticket? I have always welcomed arbitration... in case, you feel that what I say needs arbitration, please call them at once..... I will also counter with all available sources with me including page numbers etc. etc.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If two authors give different versions, as long as there not wacky one they should both be included. But what information are you specifically talking about. I have read the revisions but here you are vague. The sources shoulld also be clear. Will comment more later. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninhil, user Srirangam99 has no sources. He has never had sources. He has been blocked on multiple occassions for vandalising FA's. Untill Srirangam99 learns wiki rules, brings sources, starts a discussion, his edits are to be considered his personal opinions and reverted. I have informed some admins and they will take action if he continues to remove/tamper cited information. If you look closely at his edits you will see that they are all his own opinions. In the past, he has even questioned the need to source from reputed history related books, which suggests this user has no interest in following wiki rules. Multiple wikipedians in good standing, including admins, have adviced Srirangam99 to commit to a reasonable discussion, but this user has refused to follow rules and has continued edit warring. Let us hope we can put this to rest this time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srirangam99, Here is how a discussion works.

First and foremost, Stop edit warring.
List all the points in the article (here, in an orderly and concise manner) which you think your sources contradict.
Keep to the point. Type out what your souces say (exactly) regarding those points which are under dispute. Dont write your Phd thesis or your personal opinons, just what your sources say.
Remember, wiki is an encyclopaedia. Only majority opinons can be used. Meaning, If I produce 5 reputable sources that concur with what is in the article, and you produce one source which contradicts it, the minority info can be neglected per WP:UNDUE or moved to a footnote at best. Minority sources can't be given equal footing with majority reputable sources.
Remember, your sources have to "contradict" the existing info in the article. Just because your sources do not mention a particular event, like a war (victory or defeat), it does not mean my sources are wrong.
Provide the name of the book, its page number, name of author and ISBN number for verification. Most books are available on google books search and can be verified easily.
In case a book is not available on google search, be prepared to fax/scan pages from the sources along with the book title page, to a neutral party. I will do the same.
Published book sources are far more reliable than web sites, unless it is a unique situation. you cannot decipher medieval inscriptions on your own because that becomes WP:OR. You cannot construe a meaning to a medieval inscription, even if it is deciphered by a epigraphist or historian. The content of the deciphered inscription has to be published in a historical journal, book or column. We have been through this again and again in the past, but you dont seem to understand this basic point.
Avoid trying to confuse other interested parties with lengthy discussions that go in circles. The dispute needs to be resolved One point at a time.
Do not leave lengthy messages like the ones you have left on my talk page, Archive 18. It's a put off. Also, avoid personal attacks. I see multiple avoidable comments by you on that archive page. Remember, you have served blocks for both your language and lack of sources.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concure with you Dines, so I will also watch this page and see what Srir does, if he references his work I will not complain but if he doesn't we should disscuss exactly what he is talking about here. Don't get a heart attack. Maybe you could look at the Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism page. It isn't offensive and neither do I mean to be. Happy day Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am watching this article too (and am the author too). I am more than willing to discuss additions/subtractions to this article, if Srirangam99 makes a serious attempt to bring valid book sources and have an honest discussion. But from past interactions with him, he seems to be all swayed by local patriotism. In short, I dont believe he will be able to make a reasonable discussion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it take a user to leave a concise message

This is exactly the kind of content that is non-condusive to any discussion. Does the above thesis make any sense? Why can't a user just type a few sentences and make his point. I frankly can't make any sense of what Srirangam99 has typed out here. It is just a vast array of personal thoughts all lumped into one massive comment that can drive even the most committed users and neutral parties nuts. I again request you to stop typing such large messages that make little sense to the reader.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]