The Chola Tigers and their storyteller Amish Tripathi

Author Amish Tripathi is in utter awe of Rajendra Chola the man he was, the conquests he made, and the beautiful temples and city of Gangaikonda Cholapuram he built. What a man he was! he exclaims. This sheer awe of one of the mightiest emperors of India comes across in Amishs latest book The Chola Tigers: Avengers of Somnath, which is a part of his Indic Chronicles. The first in this series was Legend of Suheldev, released in 2020, which recounted the role of a King from Shravasti who mobilised Indians to fight the Turkic army after the destruction of the Somnath temple. The book mentions the Chola general Narasimhan telling King Suheldev that they got vengeance from Mahumd as well. The King then asks to hear that story too to which, General Narasimhan hints that perhaps an author will write about it. Im here. The author is here, laughs Amish. Along with Narasimhan, the other passengers in this journey of revenge sought against Mahumd is a Chalukya king whose father was a rival of the Cholas, a Gujarati merchant, a member of the Vavar community of Kerala whose sole duty is to protect Lord Ayyappa, and a Chola officer. Their story, told in The Chola Tigers is a celebration of a dynasty and a piece of history that hasnt gotten its due. Excerpts follow: Why did you plan on the Indic Chronicle series? The Indic Chronicles is a relook at the narrative of the last 1,300 years. There are various problems in the way history is taught to us. Even if the facts are still the same, the way they are presented to us has a very biased approach. Our history has an excessive focus on Delhi. Most other regions are ignored. If you notice, Eastern India is ignored, Central India, King Bhoj is ignored; Western India is ignored. Most of the history of the last 1,300 years essentially focusses on the region between Khyber and Agra. Delhi is an important area but it is not the only important area of India. This entire story of the last 1,300 years is presented as one of repeated defeats. The subtle or, in fact, not so subtle message given to us was, our ancestors were either cowardly or disunited because they kept losing battles. In summary, they were looking towards Khyber Pass for the next invader to come, and then there would be a battle at Panipat, which we would obviously lose. And then there would be the next oppressor oppressing us. The only difference between the British and the Turks was that the British came from the sea. Why did the British Raj come up with a historical narrative like this? Basically, to tell all of us Indians, It is your job to be slaves. My understanding of it is completely different. The same invaders who came here Arabs, Turks, Persians, Europeans, British, Portuguese went to every other ancient culture in the world. All those other ancient cultures are dead. The Aztecs, the Inca, Central America, Zoroastrianism in Persiaso many across the world, all dead. India is still standing. My interpretation of it is that the last 1,300 years is not a story of repeated defeats, but it is a story of the greatest resistance in human history. No indigenous culture anywhere in the world has fought so hard, and so long, to protect its culture. Only our ancestors did. If there is an interpretation like this, we would feel proud of our ancestors. They werent cowards; they werent disunited, they were actually the toughest people around. That is the real story of the last 1,300 years. Indic Chronicles aims to give that part of the story. Cholas and their contribution are well-known, at least in the south Why are our great ancestors reduced to regional history? Why is Chhatrapati Shivaji reduced just to Maharashtra history? Why are Rajaraja Chola and Rajendra Chola reduced just to Tamil history? Why is Emperor Bhoj reduced just to Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarhs history? Why are the Gurjar Pratiharas reduced just to Western India, Gujarat, and Maharashtra? The Rashtrakuta is reduced to only Karnataka. Why? Emperor Rajendra Chola conquered much of Southeast Asia as well. The Bay of Bengal was essentially Emperor Rajendra Cholas pond. His empire was as big as Akbars. Thats not the impression we get from our history books. In the last 1,300 years, the only national history is our invaders. Why is that? And this needs to be rebalanced. Emperor Rajendra Chola, Rajaraja Chola were not just Tamil kings, they were Indian kings. They were our ancestors too. When Emperor Rajendra Chola conquered up to Eastern India, up to the Ganga, he changed his title. He took the title Gangaikondan. It was clearly an emotional moment for him. He renamed his capital as Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Our nationalism was much more liberal and relaxed. We must celebrate that. Is there an unusual amount of spotlight on the Cholas, and are they being used as a political tool? The spotlight is going on many ignored heroes, not just the Cholas across India. The Marathas, for example. They were ignored for so many decades. The Peshwas, the Rashtrakutas, the Parmars. This is all, I think, a cultural reclaiming of our ancestors. I think its a good thing. Is there some politics with it? Yes. But there is a cultural reawakening. Lachit Borphukans memory is being revived in Assam. So many of our great heroes have been forgotten. Culturally, I think its very good. Isnt it nice if North Indians know about the Cholas, or South Indians get to know King Bhoj? King Bhoj and Emperor Rajendra Chola were allies. But this will be a shock to many. King Bhoj was also a scholar emperor. Hed written 70-80 books. These things arent spoken of in our history books. Where do you draw the line for fiction when you write historical fiction? The reality of writing historical fiction is that therell always be basic facts, and then you have to try and put a story together for two reasons. One, real life usually actually does not make sense. But a story that youre reading, you expect it to make sense. Secondly, real life is usually boring, which is why many pure history books are boring. You have to add the storytelling style to it. Thats the very nature of historical fiction. Some facts are so obviously wrong that you cant use them. But you have to update the story of it. Braveheart or Ponniyin Selvan, a lot of it is fiction. It has to be done that way. Besides your research for your books, what are you reading currently? I read more non-fiction. I just finished a long read, The Singularity is Near, and The Singularity is Nearer by Ray Kurzweil. AI is going to impact everything. If you want to understand AI and how new tech is going to impact our world, you cant do better than Ray Kurzweils books. I am also going through a series of books now by a British historian called David Starkey, who has written magisterial books on how England and the UK were created from King Alfred onwards. Of course, he is a lover of the British Empire. Your mind expands when you are willing to read someone who has a different point of view. These days, we dont do that enough. We want to be in our echo chambers. Its only when you interact with someone who disagrees with you that your mind gets exercised. I always believed that if you want to read someone who has an opposing point of view, there can be two strategies: One, read the idiot, which will make you feel superior, or go to the best thinker on the opposite side, read them and then you are actually forced to think and expand your mind. You canwatch the interview on YouTube @thenewindianxpress