“The success of the Cholas as an imperial power rested not only on the administrative efficiency, but also on a well-organized army and a formidable navy.” Evaluate.

Administrative efficiency. The Chola achievement in local government is real. The Uttaramerur inscriptions of Parantaka I, dated to the early tenth century, record the kudavolai system by which the village sabha elected committees by lot from qualified candidates, with disqualifications for defaulters. Above the village lay the nadu, valanadu and mandalam, and a land survey underpinned revenue assessment.

But the extent of central efficiency is disputed. Nilakanta Sastri portrayed a centralised bureaucratic empire; Burton Stein's segmentary state model argues that Chola authority was ritual at the periphery and real only at the core, with local assemblies acting autonomously. The truth is closer to Stein — the efficiency was of local institutions, which the crown recognised rather than created.

The army. A standing force with elephant corps, cavalry — dependent on imported horses — and the kaikkolar infantry, garrisoned in cantonments, made continuous campaigning possible.

The navy is the decisive element. No other Indian dynasty projected sea power comparably. Rajaraja I took Sri Lanka and the Maldives; Rajendra I sent the famous overseas expedition against Srivijaya around 1025, reaching Kadaram in the Malay peninsula. This protected the merchant guilds — Ayyavole and Manigramam — trading to Southeast Asia and China, and Chola embassies reached the Song court.

Evaluation. The statement is correct to widen the explanation beyond administration. The navy in particular turned a regional South Indian kingdom into a maritime power, and it is what distinguishes the Cholas from every contemporary dynasty.