|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
writing on the rock here has peeled off.[1] However, the events of the period as could be gleaned
form the Ceylonese Chronicle and the contemporary sources enable us to have a fair idea of the
relationship that must have prevailed between the Pāṇḍya, Simhaḷa and the Pallava kings of the
period and therefore of the nature of Nakkam-Puḷḷan’s act in question. The Ceylonese chronicle
Cūlavaṁsa[2] while re-counting the contemporary events says that as a reprisal to the Pāṇḍya king’s
invasion and plunder of Ceylon during the reign of Sēna I and in response to an appeal from ‘ a
prince of the Pāṇḍu family’[3] reported to have been ill-treated by the reigning king, Sēna II sent a
commander with enormous forces, who not only recaptured all the treasures but also enthroned
the prince after defeating the Pāṇḍya king who died of the wound received in the battle. The
above account has been construed by scholars in different ways. One view holds that the Pāṇḍu
prince referred to in the Chronicle was Ugra Pāṇḍya and that Varaguṇa II was the ruling king.[4]
Another view identifies the Pāṇḍu prince with Māyā-Pāṇḍya and the ruling king with Śrīmāra-Śrīvallabha.[5] There is also a view, recently expressed, which identifies the Pāṇḍu prince with
Varaguṇa II himself and the contemporary Pāṇḍya king with Varaguṇa’s father Śrīmāra Śrīvallabha.[6] Yet another view presupposes the existence of a prince otherwise unknown, who was installed on the Pāṇḍya throne by the Siṁhaḷa king after the latter defeated Śrīmāra.[7] The wording
of the record, mutilated as it is, in respect of the relationship that prevailed between the Pāṇḍya
and the Siṁhaḷa kings,[8] seems to lend support to the late Mr. Venkayya’s view that it might
have been Varaguṇa II who sought and obtained the Siṁhaḷa king’s help.[9] However, the
inscription does not give any clue as to the circumstances that necessitated Varaguṇa to seek
the help of the Siṁhaḷa king, if ever he did so. He was no pretender to the Pāṇḍya throne but
was its legitimate heir, being the elder of the two sons of his father and predecessor Śrīmāra ; nor is
there any indication in the copper-plate charters or lithic records of the family that there was
ever a dissension either between the father and the sons or among the brothers themselves, to
postulate that the aggrieved prince who sought the help of the Siṁhaḷa to regain his throne might
have been Varaguṇa. We are not in a position to visualise a situation when Varaguṇa, the legal
heir to the Pāṇḍya throne was overlooked and ill-treated by the king and therefore sought the
help of his father’s erstwhile enemy to regain his throne.[10] Who then was the Pāṇḍya prince
who was supported by the Siṁhaḷa king ? What was Varaguṇa’s position with reference to the
_________________________________________________
[1] The actual wording of the text as can made out on the stone reads, Simhaḷa-rāja . . . [lai] ellāñ=
je[ydu] (l. 7-8). This, put in apposition with the phrase paṇi-palavuñ-jeydu (ll. 11-12) points to both these acts
as those of Nakkam-Puḷḷan, the one in respect of the Siṁhaḷa king and the other in respect of his liege Varaguṇa-mahārāja. Were the former also a friendly act like the latter, the relationship between the Simhaḷa and the
Pāṇḍya monarchs could not obviously have been otherwise than friendly. But the improbability of this has
been shown below by a discussion of the events of the period.
[2] Cūlavaṁsa, Chapters L and LI, Gieger’s translation, pp. 138 ff.
[3] The expression Pāṇḍurājakumārakō in the text of the Chronicle is capable of yielding the meaning ‘a
prince of the Pāṇḍu royal family’ or ‘a son of the Pāṇḍu king’.
[4] Historical Sketches of Ancient Deccan, pp. 140-41. This view does not fit in with any scheme of the Ceylonese Chronology proposed so far.
[5] The Pandyan Kingdom, p. 72, The author has since changed his views for reasons not stated. He makes
Varaguṇa II, a pretender to the throne for which there is no warrant ; vide History of India, Part I, p. 233 ;
History of South India, p. 154.
[6] This view has failed to take into account the statement in the Cūlavaṁsa that the prince who was supported by the Ceylonese was ill-treated by the Pāṇḍya king. There is no evidence whatsoever that Varaguṇa was
ever ill-treated by his father, the ruling king. All these views were expressed by Mr. Venkayya ; A. R. Ep.
1908, p. 56 l cf. Ey. Zeyl., Vol. V, pp. 103-5.
[7] South Indian Temple inscriptions, pp. xxxv-xxxviii (see also p. xxxxiii, f.n.l).
[8]See note 1 above.
[9]A.R. Ep., 1908, p. 56.
[10] Cūlavaṁsa (Geiger), Part I, p. 150.
|
