Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c9.s2.t5: Vikramāditya I

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c9.s2.t5

Language
English

Vikramāditya I

v1.c9.s2.t5.1

Vikramāditya’s inscriptions date the commencement of his reign in A.D. 654-5. His first care was to restore confidence in the country and to repair the damage that had befallen its civil institutions, and he is said to have gained merit and fame by re-establishing by his own orders all the charitable gifts to temples and Brāhmans which had lapsed or been abolished under ‘the three kings’. He then recovered for himself the position of Parameśvara together with the regal fortune of his family by conquering in war the hostile kings of every district.¹ Practically no details have been recorded for us as to the stages of the reconquest; the Ceded Districts and Nellore must certainly have slipped from the grasp of the Chālukyas during the interregnum; but Vikramāditya’s power was soon established in these areas; the beginning is marked by the Karnūl plates of Vikramāditya bearing a date in the 3rd year of his reign. There are other records from Karnūl also. The Talamanchi plates of Vikramāditya dated in the 6th year of the king’s reign come from the Nellore *tāluk* on the east coast; a stone inscription from Annavaram² of the reign of Vikramāditya refers to the Kāḍuveṭṭi as having disturbed an earlier donation and records the erection of a sculpture commemorating Annuvayya for some notable act of his in connexion with his charity; a gap in the record obscures the nature of the service which he had rendered. A stone inscription of the 1st regnal year of Vikramāditya Satyāśraya comes from Tippalūru, in the Kamalāpuram *tāluk* of the Cuddapah District, in which Pormukharāma figures as the feudatory ruling over that part of Bāṇarāja’s territory bounded by the Peṇṇā river.³ Pormukharāma is doubtless identical with Puṇyakumāra of the Mālēpāḍu plates, which together with a stone inscription, also from Mālēpāḍu, show that the Telugu Cholas of Reṇāṇḍu, who had begun as feudatories of the Pallavas under Mahendravarman I, went over to the side of the Chālukyas and figured among their most important feudatories; their title, Chola-Mahārāja, shows the measure of autonomy which they enjoyed, near to independence; but the *birudas* of the princes and princesses like Prthivīvallabha, Vikramāditya, Satyāditya, and Poṛi attest their connexion, political and possibly also dynastic, with the Chālukyas. Lastly, two undated inscriptions of Arkatavemula (Jammalamadugu *tāluk*, Cuddapah District), one of them mentioning Śrīvallabaha Mahārāja,⁴ may also be of the reign of Vikramāditya. There is therefore sufficient evidence to show that Vikramāditya by his exertions before and soon after his accession succeeded in a short time in restoring Chālukya power in the Ceded Districts and Nellore. Similar success in another direction is attested by the Nausārī (Baroda State) plates of Dharāśraya Jayasiṃhavarman bearing the date A.D. 671;¹ this prince owed his position and prosperity to the kindness of his elder brother, Vikramāditya; the grant recorded in these plates was made by the son of Dharāśraya, called Śryāśraya Śilāditya Yuvarāja. Here we see the branching off of the Gujerat family of the Chālukyas in the same manner as the Eastern Chālukyas had branched off under Viṣṇuvardhana in the reign of Vikramāditya’s father.

v1.c9.s2.t5.2

¹ Note the distinction between the hereditary right to the father’s estate (*sva-guroḥ-śriyam*) and the dynastic right to empire (*sva-vamśajām lakṣmīm*).

v1.c9.s2.t5.3

² 183 of 1933-4, *ARE*, ii (1934), 2.

v1.c9.s2.t5.4

³ 284 of 1937-8, *ARE*, ii (1938), 15, where Vikramāditya is identified with Vikramāditya II; but see Venkataramanyya’s note on the date of the Mālēpāḍu plates; appendix to his paper on *Trairājya-Pallava*, Madras Chr. Coll. Magazine, Jan. 1929, pp. 7-18.

v1.c9.s2.t5.5

⁴ 474 and 476, of 1906.

v1.c9.s2.t5.6

¹ JBRAS, xvi, 1; EI, viii, 229.

v1.c9.s2.t5.7

The Nausārī plates of Dharāśraya mention only one achievement of Vikramāditya, the subjugation of the dynasty of the Pallavas by his irresistible might,² and this in a manner which indicates that the event was either quite recent or actually in progress at the time of the grant. This impression is strengthened by the fact that Vikramāditya was in a large military camp (*mahāskandhāvāra*) in Malliyūr to the west of Kāñchīpuram during A.D. 670–1, a period corresponding to the 16th year of his reign.³ Then there are the Gadvāl plates issued in A.D. 674 from the victorious camp at Uragapura in the Cholika-viṣaya, Uṛaiyūr on the south bank of the Kāvēri,⁴ which give further details of this invasion of the Pallava kingdom, details which must be considered along with others to be gathered from various Pallava inscriptions. The Gadvāl plates devote four verses, not found in earlier records,⁵ to the Pallava war; but as usual these verses contain more rhetoric than history. The first verse states that victory was achieved by Śrīvallabha who crushed the glory of Narasimha, caused the dissolution of the valour of Mahendra, and subdued Īśvara with his eyes. Here is obviously a play upon the names of three successive Pallava monarchs, Narasimhavarman I, Mahendravarman II, and Parameśvaravarman I, by conquering whom Vikramāditya excelled the three divinities whose names they bore—Narasimha, Mahendra, and Īśvara.⁶ The second verse states that Śrīvallabha, the favourite of fortune, became even more so after having forcibly wooed the lady of the Southern Quarter and taken possession of Kāñchī, the city which was her girdle. In the third verse Rāṇarasika (war-lust) is said to have rightly borne the title Rājamalla (wrestler with kings), since he had destroyed the family of Mahāmalla (the great wrestler), i.e. Narasimhavarman. The last verse describes the defences of Kāñchī, the strength of its ramparts and the depth of its moat, adding that the city was captured by the conqueror of Īśvarapōta-rāja. The third and fourth verses thus only repeat in other words the ideas of the first two. To turn to the other side of the medal; after a long and tiresome description of a battle,⁷ the Kūram grant of Parameśvaravarman asserts that he forced Vikramāditya, whose army consisted of several lakhs of men, to take flight, alone and covered only by a rag. In later inscriptions we read that Parameśvaravarman gained victory over the forces of the Vallabha in a battle at Peruvaḷanallūr;¹ that his valour dried up the slough of the army of Raṇarasika;² and that lastly he oppressed the city of Raṇarasika,³ doubtless Bādāmi.

v1.c9.s2.t5.8

² anivārita-pauruṣākrānta-Pallavānvayena.

v1.c9.s2.t5.9

³ Honnūr plates, MAR, 1939, no. 30.

v1.c9.s2.t5.10

⁴ Dubreuil, Pallavas, p. 43; EI, x, 100.

v1.c9.s2.t5.11

⁵ But reproduced in the spurious Hyderabad and Kurtakoti plates, IA, vi, 76-7; vii, 219.

v1.c9.s2.t5.12

⁶ This verse was correctly explained by Dr. N. Venkataramanyya: Did Paramelvaravarman I capture Vātāpi? MCC. Mag., Oct. 1927, p. 241.

v1.c9.s2.t5.13

⁷ SII, i, pp. 148-9, ll. 23-41.

v1.c9.s2.t5.14

¹ SII, ii, p. 366, ll. 16-17.

v1.c9.s2.t5.15

² Ibid., i, p. 22, v. 2.

v1.c9.s2.t5.16

³ Ibid., i, p. 12, v. 5, l. 1. The word 'unmardana' cannot mean 'destroyer'. Here Parameśvara is designated Ugradanda.

v1.c9.s2.t5.17

We have also a verse in the Tamil poem Periyapurāṇam (twelfth century A.D.) describing the attack on Vātāpi led by Parañjōti alias Śiruṭṭoṇḍar, a Tamil general, who came back with a vast amount of booty and laid it at the feet of the king whom he served.⁴ This king’s name is not given in the Purāṇam. Older writers connected Śiruṭṭoṇḍar’s raid on Vātāpi with the invasion of Narasimhavarman I, but recent studies have shown that Śiruṭṭoṇḍar is best placed in the reign of the later Pallava ruler.

v1.c9.s2.t5.18

⁴ Śiruṭṭoṇḍar, v. 6.

v1.c9.s2.t5.19

Again, the Vaiṣṇava saint Tirumangai Āḻvār makes a pointed reference to a defeat inflicted by the warriors of Nāṅgūr on the strong Pāṇḍya and the northern king who were both constrained to flee from the battlefield, one after the other.⁵ The warriors of Nāṅgūr (Tanjore district) doubtless formed a strong contingent in the Pallava army, and the reference to the flight of the northern king sounds like an echo of the account of the battle of Peruvaḷanallūr in the Kūram plates; and if it may be so accepted, we may infer further that the Pāṇḍya ruler of the time, Arikesari Parāṅkuśa Māravarman (A.D. 670–710), co-operated with Vikramāditya I and shared his defeat. The general political conditions prevailing in South India at the time render this extremely probable, for the long-drawn-out rivalry between the Pāṇḍyas and Pallavas begins in the reign of Arikesari, and an alliance between these two enemies of the Pallava power would have been quite natural.

v1.c9.s2.t5.20

⁵ Periya-Tirumoḻi, 4. 5. 6.

v1.c9.s2.t5.21

The course of events can be followed only in a general way. Vikramāditya’s success against Narasimhavarman, of which we get no details, was certainly part of the early struggles which preceded his accession to the throne, and possibly continued for some years thereafter. Mahendravarman II had a short and uneventful rule; but seeing his name also included among the opponents of the Chāḷukya ruler, we may well assume that the invasion of the Pallava territory began in his reign;⁶ the encampment at Malliyūr (Malaiyūr in the Wandiwash tāluk) and the capture of Kāñchīpuram fell early in the reign of Parameśvaravarman. This invasion seems to have taken place across Gaṅga territory from the West; the Honnūr plates issued by Vikramāditya from his great camp at Malliyūr record a grant made at the request of the Gaṅga prince Mādhava, the son-in-law of an otherwise unknown elder brother of Vikramāditya called Raṇarāgavarma. And we know that the Gadvāl plates were issued four years later at the request of Gaṅga-mahādēvī, possibly the mother of Vikramāditya. Parameśvaravarman made his escape from Kāñchī, gathered forces from the rest of the kingdom for relieving the capital and expelling the invader, and caused a diversion by sending out an army into the Chālukya country under Śiruṭṭoṇḍar in order to divide the enemy’s forces before the decisive battle should be joined; this happened at Peruvaḷanallūr (Lālguḍi tāluk, in the Trichinopoly district) sometime about the date of the Gadvāl grant (April, A.D. 674). We may perhaps not accept at their face value the exaggerated claims made for Parameśvara in the Kūram grant; but there is little reason to doubt that the Pallava ruler gained his main objective and disappointed the invader by forcing him to retreat into his own territory and so leave the Pallava kingdom alone for the time being.

v1.c9.s2.t5.22

⁶ The obscure Gaddemane inscription (MAR 1923, p. 83, no. 72) may be a reference to a fight between Mahendra II and Śilāditya the son of Jayasimha the younger brother of Vikramāditya I. See IHQ, v, 325.

v1.c9.s2.t5.23

During the fairly long absence of Vikramāditya in the south, the home territory was ruled and guarded by his son Vinayāditya (sun of discipline), and *his* son Vijayāditya (sun of victory). They were quite equal to the task of beating back the Pallava army of Śiruṭṭoṇḍar, though no doubt only after a hard fight, as that army seems to have advanced as far as Vātāpi and sacked the city. The son is said to have stemmed the exultant forces of the lord of the triple kingdom of Kāñchī at the word of his father like Kumāra arresting the army of *Asuras* at the command of Śiva; and the grandson was also engaged during his grandfather’s absence on his conquering expedition to the south, in rooting out all the thorns from the body politic.¹ That the Pallava invasion had caused unsettlement in the Chālukya kingdom may also be inferred from the further statement that Vinayāditya pleased the mind of his father by pacifying all the provinces in the realm. Thus father, son, and grandson had their hands full for some years with work, civil and military, at home and abroad. But the kingdom stood the test well and came out unscathed. On the other hand, the attack on the Pallavas had brought no gain, and had made no great difference to the firm hold which these Pallavas still had on the southern country.

v1.c9.s2.t5.24

¹ Jejuri plates, *EI*, xix, 62; Nerūr, *IA*, ix, 126.

v1.c9.s2.t5.25

Later inscriptions² pile up complimentary epithets regarding Vikramāditya’s widespread fame as a warrior, his defeat of the Pallava who had put a disgrace on the spotless family of the moon (Chālukyas), and the capture of Kāñchīpura which followed; his valour leading to the destruction of the Pāṇḍya, Chōḷa, Kerala, Kaḷabhra, and others, his having forced the lord of Kāñchīpura, who had never before bowed to anyone, to come and lay his head at his lotus feet; and his having become the overlord of the whole earth included within the three seas. What is new here is not history; the element of history in these epithets has been traced above with the more reliable guidance of contemporary inscriptions.

v1.c9.s2.t5.26

² Kendūr plates— *EI*, ix, 202; *EC*, xi, Dg. 66.

Cites (8)