History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c5.7

c5.7

In the empire of the Sātavāhanas which began to break up early in the third century, the dismemberment seems to have been due somewhat earlier to the provincial governors setting themselves up in some kind of independence. The south-western block seems to have remained in its integrity the latest, while the aggressions of the Kshatrapas in the north and north-west to some extent, and the advance of the Vākāṭakas from the middle to a larger extent, deprived them of what was the headquarters block of the Sātavāhana empire. The eastern and south-eastern portion must similarly have separated themselves, and we find on the farther side of the Krishna river the Sālankāyana first and Vishnukundins later occupying the territory north of the Krishna. There was perhaps similar disintegration noticeable further south along the East coast, so that when (about a century after the passing away of Andhra rule completely), Samudragupta's invasion came south, there were many kingdoms in the region which submitted to his authority and accepted a feudatory position to his overlordship. A ruler of Kanchi by name Vishnugopa figures in the list, and although he is not called a Pallava in the Samudragupta inscription—we have no right to expect this where every ruler is simply defined by references to his capital, not to his family or dynasty and Vishnugopa was ruler of Kanchi—leaves but little doubt, and the occurrence of a number of Vishnugopas in the list of Pallava rulers of Kanchi leaves us in no uncertainty that this Vishnugopa was as well a Pallava ruler. It is this disturbing influence of Samudragupta's invasion that introduced a change, which necessitated the succeeding ruler of Kanchi to make an effort at legitimizing his own particular position as ruler of Kanchi. This was done, in all probability, by a marriage alliance with the heiress of the south-western block of the Sātavāhana territory, the territory dependent upon the viceroyalty of Banavasi. The rulers were known generally as Chūṭu Nāgas, and, if a princess of that family had been married to a Pallava, it would be a Nāga alliance that would give at the same time a sort of a claim to the territory of which she was heiress to the Pallavas. Otherwise the overlordship claimed by the Pallavas and acknowledged readily by the Gangas, and none the less acknowledged though less readily by the Kadambas, would be inexplicable. Mayūraśarman almost shows himself rebel against Pallava authority. The Ganga rulers readily acknowledged it, two of their kings having been installed by their Pallava overlords Simhavarman and Skandavarman. This means that the Pallavas claimed authority over the whole of the territory of the Sātavāhanas in the south, and that is what really accounts for the implacable enmity between the Great Pallavas and the early Cāḷukyas, who became rulers of the territory in the immediate neighbourhood of the kingdom of Banavasi of the Kadambas. It seems, thefore, clear that the Pallavas began as officers of the Sātavāhanas and ultimately rose to undisputed possession of the territory of Kanchi, the right to which they strengthened by an alliance with the heiress of the southern block of the Sātavāhana territory, thus in a way becoming titular descendants of the Sātavāhanas over the whole of the southern region of Sātavāhana territory including in it their own new conquest, the territory of Toṇḍamaṇḍalam dependent upon Kanchi.