Page:Tamil studies.djvu/138

granting that the struggle between Brahmanism and Jainism was the essential cause of this curious division, the logical inference would be that most of the artizans would have adopted the Jaina faith, and the Brahmans and Jains would have respectively espoused the right and left hand factions. But the census statistics of 1891 clearly showed that only 40 artizans were Jains, and even these belonged to the right-hand faction, while the Brahmans occupied, as already stated, a neutral position. Jainism was on the decline in the south during the eighth and ninth centuries, but it had not lost its strong-hold in the Pallava and Kadamba kingdoins. The Periyapuranam and the Tiruvilayadalpuranam give graphic descriptions of constant struggles between the Brahmans and Jains, and of the zeal and enthusiasm evinced by the Chola and Pandya sovereigns in putting down Jainism in their countries. And we know how long Sri Ramanuja had to struggle with the Jains before he succeeded in converting Bitti Deva (Vishnu Vardhana), the Jain king of Mysore (A. D. 1138). It is therefore possible that Jainism, an anti-Brahmanical religion professed by the enemies of the Chola kings, might have acted as a third cause for the division into the right-hand and left-hand factions. The supposition, therefore, of Mr. Nelson that religious difference has little or no connection with this remarkable feud cannot be accepted, though he is very near the mark in suggesting that the obstinacy of the Panchalas in disputing the supremacy of the Brahmans and their