History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c5.15.3

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.