History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c5.15

Language: English

c5.15.1

The accession of Nandivarman Pallavamalla to the Pallava throne and how it actually happened have alike remained a problem in Pallava history till recently. The publication of some of the Vaikuṇṭha Perumāḷ temple epigraphs¹ clears the doubt completely, though it does not altogether dispel the darkness that surrounded the actual character of his accession to power. From the epigraphs, it is clear that, when Paramēśvaravarman died, for some reason or other, the great citizens of the land had to be on the look out for a suitable successor. The position of the Pallavas at the time was far from easy. After some futile efforts they ultimately made up their minds to offer it to Hiranyavarma the collateral cousin through the younger brother of Simhavishnu; but Hiranya shrank from the responsibility as an old man and offered the chance to each one of his four sons in turn. The three elder ones refused the responsibility and the youngest of them all, Pallavamalla by name, or Paramēśvaravarman Pallavamalla, agreed to accept the responsibility with an alacrity which was disconcerting to the father’s paternal instincts. He was however allowed to succeed, and, when he reached Kanchi, he was duly installed under the title Nandivarman. Hence his full style Nandivarman Pallavamalla or Paramēśvaran Pallavamalla *alias* Nandivarman. This gives colour to some of the hymns of Tirumangai Āḻvar which celebrate the temple as Paramēśvara-Viṇṇagaram.

c5.15.2

It cannot now be taken that the Vishnu temple was founded by Paramēśvaravarman II, nor even by Paramēśvaravarman I. It now becomes quite clear that the founder of this temple is the Pallava prince to whom the Āḻvar makes so many direct references. All of them refer to Nandivarman Pallavamalla in his family name Paramēśvaravarman. That apart, the accession, according to these records is a peaceful one by the choice of the people and therefore come to legitimately. But there are other charters which broadly state, as is recounted in the following pages, that he came to the throne as a result of fighting and by an act of usurpation. The two statements it is possible to reconcile, and it is hardly necessary to take them as irreconcilable alternatives. The facts seem to have been these. A Chāḷukya invasion seems to have been imminent, and the constant hostility of this power on the northern frontier together with the rising activity of the Pāṇḍyas in the south made the position of the Pallavas in the middle one of extreme anxiety. The maintenance of the Pallava power intact meant a Janus-faced fight, south against the Pāṇḍyas and north against the Chāḷukyas.

c5.15.3

When Paramēśvaravarman II died, if the responsible people of the kingdom felt that the ruler that succeeded him should be a man of ability and resource, and not a child succeeding a comparatively inefficient rule of a father, their offer of the throne to Hiraṇyavarman, possibly a veteran administrator at the time, would have valid justification on the basis of the fitness of the person. The legitimate successor, Chitramāya, or, whoever he was, may have been comparatively young and weak; and even later, the fight that could be put up in his favour does not appear to have been strong enough to make this assumption unwarranted. It was a useful change though the actual successor happened to be a young boy of twelve, supported as he must have been with all the resources of his father and brothers, and other officers of the kingdom. Those whose sympathies were on the legitimist side would naturally call such a succession an act of usurpation, while to those of the opposite faction Nandivarman’s acceptance of the office was an honourable act of public beneficence for the well-being of the State. The thirteen or fourteen epigraphs that have been published throw very important light upon this position, and from these, what has hitherto been known regarding this succession receives fresh illumination.

c5.15.4

Nandivarman probably came to the throne and accepted the responsibility that it involved, by the invitation of those responsible for the welfare of the state, necessarily setting aside the legitimate claims of another prince of the family. The war which was a consequence necessarily, went against the legitimate prince, but the actual achievements of the general in behalf of Nandivarman seem fully to justify the anxiety of those who went out of their way to set aside the legitimate successor in favour of another. It need not therefore be the fault of Nandivarman Pallavamalla that he ascended the throne, not an act of his own, and merely for the sake of the position or the power that it carried with it. Though his earlier years were clouded by these wars, he managed to tide over these troubles both by successful war and by equally successful diplomacy, subverting the natural enemy, the Chālukyas in the north, and entering into a more or less permanent alliance with their successors, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas; on the south, he got into perhaps a treaty of alliance with the Pāṇḍyas, after a good deal of fight with them on behalf of the rulers of Kongu, whose independence all his efforts could not sustain. When he died, his kingdom could pass down to his son without any difficulty and Pallava rule continued for another three or four generations, for almost a century, without distress.