History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c15.s2: II—The Later Pallavas of Kānchī

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c15.s2

Language: English

II—The Later Pallavas of Kānchī

v1.c15.s2.1

The later Pallavas of Kānchī may be looked upon as contemporaneous with the early Chālukyas and comprised many able kings who were always at feud with their Chālukya contemporaries. These kings were (1) Sinha Vishnu who is placed by Dubreuil in about 590 A. D. ; his son was (2) Mahendravarman I, his son (3) Narsinhavarman I; his son (4) Mahendravarman II, his son (5) Parmeśvaravarman I, his son (6) Narsinhavarman II, and his son (7) Parmeśvaravarman II who is placed by Dubreuil in about 715 A. D. In the margin we give the contemporaneous Chālukya kings. The 7th and last was succeeded by Nandipotavarman of a collateral branch who was defeated by Vikramāditya Chālukya and with him we may suppose the later Pallavas to have gone out of importance.

v1.c15.s2.2

v1.c15.s2.3

Thus from about 550 to 750 A. D. these two Mahārāshtra Kshatriya families contended for the overlordship of the Indian Peninsula south of the Nerbudda and aimed at and prided upon being lords between three seas. The Pallavas had of course already subjugated the Chola, Pāndya, Kerala and Kalabhra kings and the latter often sided with their Pallava overlords as feudatories in their battles with the Chālukyas. If does not appear that the Pallavas were ever finally successful; in this hereditary conflict the victory lay usually with the Chālukyas. But the fortunes were often varying and we need not enter into the details of these reverses and successes. Grants and inscriptions of both the Chālukyas and the Pallavas have been found in great numbers and sometimes contain contradictory statements. But a consistent history has been evolved by scholars which may be related shortly as follows.

v1.c15.s2.4

Sinhavishṇu was the first great sovereign among the later Pallavas. He conquered, besides the Cholas etc, even Ceylon. His son was Mahendravarman I who was defeated by Pulakeśin II the great rival of Harsha. When Hiuen Tsang visited Kāñchī, his son Narasinhavarman was on the throne; he was apparently subject to Pulakeśin II. But this Narasinhavarman I eventually defeated Pulakeśin II in 642 and his capital Vātāpi was taken and plundered by him. The latter's son Vikramāditya I thereafter revived the glory of the Chālukyas and took revenge by seizing Kāñchī in return. The date of this conquest of Parmeśvaravarman I by Vikramāditya I is fixed by a grant of the latter (Gadval plates, Ep. Ind. X p. 101) in 674 A. D. (Dubreuil p. 42). A grant of Vikramāditya's son Vinayāditya dated 613 Śaka or 691 A. D. (Ind. Ant. Vol. VI p. 89) contains some interesting information. The epithet हिमकरकरविमल कुलपरिभविलयहेतुपल्लवपतिपराजयानन्तरगृहीतकाञ्चिपुरस्य (विक्रमादित्यस्य) is somewhat obscure. This has been translated by Dr. Fleet as follows "who seized the city of Kāñchī after the defeat of the leader of Pallavas, who had been the cause of the humiliation of the family as pure as the rays of the moon." Now the real difficulty is in the word विलय; the पल्लवपति is described not as परिभवहेतु but परिभविलयहेतु, विलय being omitted or left unnoticed by Fleet. But the expression is indeed obscure. The Chālukya family is here supposed to be of the lunar race as later records represent it, but this point is also doubtful. However the main fact is apparent viz. that the Pallavas being defeated their city was entered. Another important epithet applied to Vikramāditya in this grant is त्रिसमुद्रमध्यवर्तिमण्डलाधीश्वरस्य which shows that he was the overlord of all the chiefs who ruled within three oceans. And thirdly the word त्रैराज्यपल्लवबलमवष्टभ्य shows the Pallavas had three kingdoms much in the same way as the Chālukyas had three Mahārāshtas (viz. Vidarbha, Mahārāshtra proper and Kuntala or southern Maratha country). And the three kingdoms of the Pallavas were probably Vengi, Kānchī and Palakkada; but Vengi had already been lost and taken by the Eastern Chālukyas. Perhaps the traditional epithet Trairājya Pallava still remained.

v1.c15.s2.5

The Pallavas though often defeated retained, however, their kingdom as usual in ancient times and were powerful for a long time. The last defeat inflicted on them (under Nandipotavarman) by the Chālukyas, was under Vikramāditya II in about 740 A. D. Kānchī was again seized and entered. But being considered a sacred city as already mentioned, it was never plundered by the orthodox Chālukyas. On the contrary any plunder taken from temples by unscrupulous hands was restored and many rich presents were made by the Chālukya king and queen to its famous gods. Nandipotavarman’s power may be said to have declined from this time. He had a long reign however of about 51 years.

v1.c15.s2.6

The later Pallavas were like the earlier ones great Śaivas and they have left behind them temples and caves and rock-cut rathas which are yet the admiration of the world. They surpassed the Chālukyas in this respect. The Rājasinheśvara or Kailāsanātha temple in Kānchī is famous. Who this Rājasinha was is not quite clear, but he seems to have been Narasinhavarman II (some scholars take him to be Narasinhavarman I). The birudas or titles of these kings are so numerous that it is really difficult to identify them. These birudas are the fancies of poet-flatterers. The Rājasinheśvara temple contains many such e. g. Atyantakānta, Ranachanda and so on, but as plainly showing that these Pallavas were Kshatriyas as Hiuen Tsang states, we may quote one viz: Śrikshatra-chūdamani. The Māmallapura temple of Śiva contains a short inscription in it viz. अतिरणचण्डपल्लवेश्वरगृह. In the Kailāsanātha temple in an inscription the pedigree of the Pallavas is given as (1) Brahmā (2) Angiras (3) Brihaspati (4) Śamyu (5) Bharadvāja (6) Droṇa (7) Aśvatthāmā (1) Pallava. In his line was born Ugradanda who defeated Ranarasika probably a Chālukya king. His son was Rājasinha. Dubreuil opines that Ugradanda and Lokāditya mentioned in the inscriptions of the Kailāsanātha temple at Kānchī mean Parameśvara I and Ranarasika is Vikramāditya I. Thus this Chālukya after defeating the Pallavas was in turn defeated on the banks of the Kāveri by three kings united viz. Kānchī Sinhala and Pāndya kings. The date of this defeat is 674 A. D. (see Dubreuil p. 42 noted before). The builder of the Rājasinheśvara temple would then be Narasinhavarman II of about 700 A. D. The rock-cut temples at Māmallapura near Madras called the "Seven Pagodas" and the cave temples at Mahendravādi and Māmandūr were excavated by order of these Pallava kings from Mahendravarman I (Smith). There are at Māmallapura (the name Mamalla is derived from Mahāmalla a title of Narasinhavarman I) three Śaiva temples and one Vaishnava. Dubreuil thinks that Mahendravarman and his father originally ruled in the Telagu country to the north of the Krishna and the cave works and rock-cut temples he execdted during his reign at Kānchī were copied from similar buildings and excavations at Amarāvati. The art thus in his opinion goes back to the Buddhistic period and is Greek in origin,

v1.c15.s2.7

The later Pallavas were thus great builders of temples. Dubreuil thinks that Narasinhavarman II surnamed Rājasinha had a long, and peaceful reign, and did nothing else "except loading Saivite priests with favours and building temples to Śiva. Besides the famous Kailāsanātha or Rājasinheśvara temple he built the Shore Temples at Mahābalipura and the Panamalai temple. The Airāvateśvara temple at Kānchī may also be added to this list." (p. 45). These kings also appear to be patrons of letters.

v1.c15.s2.8

A burlesque ( प्रहसन ) has been found at Travancore of which Mahendravarman I is the writer. (It would be interesting to read this drama or rather Prahasana). And Dubreuil has found confirmation of this fact from an inscription on a cave at Māmandūr and which he reads as मत्तविलासादिपदं प्रहसनं, Mattavilāsa being a title of Mahendravarman I. The greatness of this king is described by Dubreuil as follows, "(1) he checked the Chālukya invasion at Pallalur, (2) he gave a new impulse to Śaivism, (3) he glorified poetry and music (it appears he was himself the composer of some svaras), (4) he transferred the taste for rock-cut temples from the banks of the Krishna to those of the Pālār and Kāveri and (5) for administrative purposes he built tanks at Mahendravādi, Māmandūr and probably at Dalavamir. "Thus Mahendravarman I opened a new era whose apotheosis we shall see in the reign of his son Narasinhavarman I" (p. 40). This praise is well merited. The successors of Narasinha too were great builders e. g. Rājasinha alias Narasinhavarman II. They were also great patrons of learning, the son of this Narasinhavarman viz. Parameśvravarman being a great patron of letters. We give in the appendix a grant of this Parmeśvaravarman as much as a sample of the good poetry of the Pallava school as proof of this fact. We shall find also mention of many historical facts in connection with the Pallavas and the Chālukyas, (the French and the English of India) in this inscription. The Pallavas were great patrons of Sanskrit literature and not Dravidian literature which latter it must be stated flourished at the court of the earlier Pāndya kings at Madura. In fact as we have already stated the Pallavas spoke a mid-Indian language.

v1.c15.s2.9

The social relations of these Pallavas also appear to be with the northerners. For instance the Chālukya first king is said to have married a Pallava princess. Then again (Archealogical S. R. Part V) the Vellur plate already quoted states that the wife of Dantivarman was a Kadamba princess* And similarly in a grant at p. 555 it is stated that Nandivarman had married a Rāṣṭrakūṭa lady.† The name of this lady was Revā and her son was properly called Dantivarman from his Rāṣṭrakūṭa grandfather (Dubreuil p. 75). Whether the Pallavas married Dravidian Chola, Pāṇḍya, Kerala princesses we do not know. But it is not strange if they did, for the Mahārāṣṭra Aryan Kshatriyas also married Nāgavaṃśa princesses. The theory then was that a Kshatriya could take a wife from any caste down to Śūdras and the progeny still remained Kshatriya. The southern Aryans of the lunar race like the northern ones appear to have mixed themselves with Nāga families freely.

v1.c15.s2.10

∗ मख्यातस्य कदम्बवंशतिलकस्योर्वीपतेरात्मजा.

v1.c15.s2.11

† आसीत्‌इक्ष्वाकुदेवी तन्वङ्गीनन्दिवर्मणः । राष्ट्रकूटकुले जाता लक्ष्मीरिव सुराद्विषः ॥

v1.c15.s2.12

The Pallavas in all their grants never use the Śaka era, in fact they mention no other years but their own regnal years and hence their dates are open to doubt. This absence of the Śaka era in due to their old pedigree which goes back beyond 400 A. D. when the Śaka era, as we have said before, was popularised by new astronomical Siddhāntas. In fact the Pallavas go back to the period of the Sātavāhanas who never used the Śaka era. The Pallavas are thus plainly an older people than the Chālukyas, that is to say they were settled in the Deccan much earlier than the latter.

v1.c15.s2.13

We may in conclusion give in brief a short history of what we may call the last or third Pallava line. It was composed of four kings whose dates are ascertained by Dubreuil as in the margin. Of these we have already seen that Nandivarman was defeated by Chālukya Vikramāditya II in 745 A. D. The Chālukyas themselves fell before the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkhed and it appears that these last Pallavas recognised thereafter the supremacy of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas.

v1.c15.s2.14

v1.c15.s2.15

Dantivarman is said to have been defeated by the Rāshṭrakūṭas about 803 A. D. After Nṛipatunga the Pallavas under Aparājita* were extinguished by the Cholas in about 900 A. D. under Āditya I. Thereafter we do not hear of any Pallava kings These last Pallavas apparently ruled in Kāñchī. They all have left many grants. They cannot be called Ganga Pallavas according to Dubreuil and Gopinathrao. The Gangas were a distinct line in Kanara and Mysore and should not be confounded with the Pallavas. Nandivarman II is said to have defeated the Pāndya kings at Tellaru when they invaded his territories on the Kaveri and hence Dubreuil calls him Nandi of Tellaru. Nṛipatunga had undoubtedly Tanjore and Trichonopally under him as his grants show and it is there that the Cholas subsequently rose to power. These Cholas we shall have to refer to in the third epoch of our history.

v1.c15.s2.16

The present chiefs of Pundukotta represent themselves to be descendants of the Pallavas and their claim may be well founded. But it may be noted that since the Chola supremacy the Pallavas ceased to have any connection with the north and the Pallavas must have been confined to marriages with Dravidian chiefs. They belong to the latter period of Indian history when as we shall further on relate marriage relations became strict all over India.

v1.c15.s2.17

∗ Some scholars say that Aparājita is but another name of Nṛipatunga who took it after defeating the Pāndyas. In any case the name Aparājita proved untrue for the king was finally defeated and the line extinguished by Āditya I.

Linked texts (7)

Mattavilāsaprahasana — Mahendravarman I, Sanskrit
Epigraphia Indica
Indian Antiquary
Shore Temple
Mamallapuram
Mahendravadi
Kailasanatha Temple