South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

DOMMARA-NANDYALA PLATES OF PUNYAKUMARA ;
10TH YEAR

The similarity of names and titles assumed by the three generations of these Chōḷa kings to those of the Pallava monarchs of this period only shows, as has been pointed out by Mr. Krishna Sastri, ‘ an undefined relationship ’ between members of these two dynasties. If it meant any relationship of political nature, the omission of its mention in the records of either the one or the other dynasty is very unusual. If, on the other hand, it implied any matrimonial relationship between these two families, all the records hitherto known of both these families are silent about it. It may be recalled that it was Chōḷa Mahēndravarman that acquired the title of Chōḷa-Mahārāja. The possible reason for his apparent bid for independence is perhaps to be sought for in the great political upheaval that occurred at this period on account of the wars between the Pallavas and the Chāḷukyas. Or more probably it may be that Mahēndravarman obtained or was bestowed with (pariprāpta) this title by the then suzerain power which wielded authority over the tract held by the Chōḷa kings. Which could this power be ? By their proximity and their great strength the Pallavas must have undoubtedly made their influence felt over these Telugu-Chōḷa kings. The assumption of names or titles similar to those of the Pallava monarchs by these kings already alluded to makes this inference obvious. It is likely that the powerful king Paramēśvaravarman I conferred this title of Chōḷa-Mahārāja on Mahēndravarman whose predecessors were mere nṛipatis. Instances of subject or subordinate chiefs raised to a higher status or allowed to retain their royal prerogatives and privileges by the suzerain power are not wanting in the history of the South Indian ruling families. The Penukoṇḍa plates of Mādhavavarman (II) specifically state that the Pallava kings, Siṁhavarman and ɥis son Skandavarman installed the Gaṅga kings Āyyavarman and his son Mādhava Mahādhirāja respectively,1 allowing the latter to retain his royal titles. Śivamāra II, a later king of the same dynasty who is also said to have been crowned by his Rāshṭrakūṭa and Pallava suzerains bears all the paramount titles characteristic of his family.^[2] The Bāṇas though figuring as a subordinate power, are invariably characterised by their titles Mahābali Bāṇarāja or Bāṇādhirāja.^[3]

Of Guṇamudita, the elder son of Mahēndravarman, nothing is known. It was during the reign of Paramēśvaravarman II that the power of the Pallavas was completely eclipsed by the Chāḷukyan onslaught under Vijayāditya, his son Vikramāditya II^[4] and the latter’s son Kīrttivaramn II. The reign of Puṇyakumāra, the brother of Guṇamudita, probably coincided with the fall of the Pallava power ; and with the conquering power of the Chāḷukyaas situated far away to wield any effective authority over the conquered territory, he probably found it conducive to rule as an independent king. He now calls himself ‘ lord of the Hiraṇyarāshṭra ’. His authority over this territory while issuing the Mālēpāḍu charter five years prior to this grant was implied as he is then said to have addressed the subjects of his territory along with those of Hiraṇyarāshṭra.

It is evident that the territorial division of Hiraṇyarāshṭra must have included in it parts at least of the present Jammalamaḍugu and the Prodduṭūru taluks inasmuch as the villages Nandigāma, Pasiṁḍikuru and Pudorūru mentioned in the record cap all be identified as shown in the sequel, with villages bearing more or less similar names in these two taluks, though, it must be admitted, there is no definite statement in the record that the villages wherein the gift lands lay

The similarity of names and titles assumed by the three generations of these Chōḷa kings to those of the Pallava monarchs of this period only shows, as has been pointed out by Mr. Krishna Sastri, ‘ an undefined relationship ’ between members of these two dynasties. If it meant any relationship of political nature, the omission of its mention in the records of either the one or the other dynasty is very unusual. If, on the other hand, it implied any matrimonial relationship between these two families, all the records hitherto known of both these families are silent about it. It may be recalled that it was Chōḷa Mahēndravarman that acquired the title of Chōḷa-Mahārāja. The possible reason for his apparent bid for independence is perhaps to be sought for in the great political upheaval that occurred at this period on account of the wars between the Pallavas and the Chāḷukyas. Or more probably it may be that Mahēndravarman obtained or was bestowed with (pariprāpta) this title by the then suzerain power which wielded authority over the tract held by the Chōḷa kings. Which could this power be ? By their proximity and their great strength the Pallavas must have undoubtedly made their influence felt over these Telugu-Chōḷa kings. The assumption of names or titles similar to those of the Pallava monarchs by these kings already alluded to makes this inference obvious. It is likely that the powerful king Paramēśvaravarman I conferred this title of Chōḷa-Mahārāja on Mahēndravarman whose predecessors were mere nṛipatis. Instances of subject or subordinate chiefs raised to a higher status or allowed to retain their royal prerogatives and privileges by the suzerain power are not wanting in the history of the South Indian ruling families. The Penukoṇḍa plates of Mādhavavarman (II) specifically state that the Pallava kings, Siṁhavarman and ɥis son Skandavarman installed the Gaṅga kings Āyyavarman and his son Mādhava Mahādhirāja respectively,1 allowing the latter to retain his royal titles. Śivamāra II, a later king of the same dynasty who is also said to have been crowned by his Rāshṭrakūṭa and Pallava suzerains bears all the paramount titles characteristic of his family.2 The Bāṇas though figuring as a subordinate power, are invariably characterised by their titles Mahābali Bāṇarāja or Bāṇādhirāja.3

Of Guṇamudita, the elder son of Mahēndravarman, nothing is known. It was during the reign of Paramēśvaravarman II that the power of the Pallavas was completely eclipsed by the Chāḷukyan onslaught under Vijayāditya, his son Vikramāditya II4 and the latter’s son Kīrttivaramn II. The reign of Puṇyakumāra, the brother of Guṇamudita, probably coincided with the fall of the Pallava power ; and with the conquering power of the Chāḷukyaas situated far away to wield any effective authority over the conquered territory, he probably found it conducive to rule as an independent king. He now calls himself ‘ lord of the Hiraṇyarāshṭra ’. His authority over this territory while issuing the Māl&##275;pāḍu charter five years prior to this grant was implied as he is then said to have addressed the subjects of his territory along with those of Hiraṇyarāshṭra.

It is evident that the territorial division of Hiraṇyarāshṭra must have included in it parts at least of the present Jammalamaḍugu and the Prodduṭūru taluks inasmuch as the villages Nandigāma, Pasiṁḍikuru and Pudorūru mentioned in the record cap all be identified as shown in the sequel, with villages bearing more or less similar names in these two taluks, though, it must be admitted, there is no definite statement in the record that the villages wherein the gift lands lay

_______________________________________________

^[1] Above, Vol. XIV, p. 335.
^[2] Ep. Carn., Vol. IX, Nl. 60, p. 47.
^[3] Above, Vol. V, p. 50 ; ibid., Vol. XI, pp. 224. etc.
^[4] An inscription of the Western Chāḷukya king Vijayāditya copied recently at Uḷchal in the Kurnool District by Mr. N. Lakshminarayan Rao, is dated in his 35th regnal year and refers to an expedition undertaken by Yuvarāja Vikramādiya, son of Vijayāditya, against Pallava Paramēśvaravarman (II). This obviously is Vikramāditya’s first attack on Kāñchī. His two subsequent expeditions against his hereditary foes are those mentioned in the Vakkalēri plates of his son Kīrttivarman (above, Vol. V, pp. 200 f.).