Brief notes on the Pallavas of Kanchi

In c. 600 the Kalabhra power effectively disappeared from the Tamil country since they were liquidated almost simultaneously in Madurai by the Pandyan Kadungon and in Kanchipuram by the Pallava Simhavishnu. In the case of Madurai it was the restoration of the old Pandyan power.

In the case of Kanchipuram, however, we find the Pallavas emerging as a new political force unknown to Sangam politics. They were, however, destined to play a very important role in the history of South India for more than five centuries and were not dislodged from nearly Imperial position till the emergent Imperial power of the Cholas destroyed their power.

Who were these Pallavas? What was their original homeland? How did they happen to set themselves up in Kanchi as a powerful political entity? There are six major theories regarding the origin and homeland of the Pallavas.

Lewis Rice held the view that the Pallavas were the descendants of the Pahlavas, a group among the Persians. He quotes the Puranas which mention the Pallavas, the Haiheyas and the Yavanas in the same breath and he also depends for his theory on verbal similarity. Venkayytf, the noted epigraphist, supported Lewis Rice and said that Pallava was a Sanskritisation of Pahlava. Jouveau Dubreil, a French Indologist, connected the Pallavas with Suvisaka, a minister of Rudradaman, a Pahlava.

This theory after holding the field for some time was given up since there were no answers to questions like, ‘Is there any proof for Pahlava-Pallava identity apart from similarity in names?’ ‘Why of all places did they choose south-eastern Andhra or Tondaimandalam for their stay in historical times?’, ‘What route did they take, if at all, for their southward sojourn and how is it that between Persia and Tondaimandalam they have left no traces of their ever having stayed there?’

But recently this theory was revived by Venkatasubbier and others who studied a certain sculptural representation in the Vaikunthapperumal Temple, Kanchi which depicts (or looks like depicting) the offer of a crown to a prince by someone.

This crown undoubtedly resembles an elephant’s scalp and these theorists concluded from this that there must be a Parthian or Saka connection with the scene and so again decided that the Pallavas were Pahlavas.

This new argument has not added any significant dimension to the theory as originally adumbrated by Lewis Rice. The old objections remain unanswered and the theory may be given up at least till more convincing proof is presented to defend it.

M. Srinivasha Iyengar, the author of The Tamil Studies assigned a Naga origin to the Pallavas. He supports his theory with the reference in the Tamil epic Manimekalai which mentions a Chola-Naga alliance and the story of the Tiraiyar said to be the offspring of that alliance.

The Talagunda inscription of Kadamba Kakustavarman also mentions a Naga alliance adverting to Pallava origins. Srinivasha Iyengar bases his theory on that reference also. Vincent Smith does not object to these views.

K.P. Jayaswal thought that the Pallavas were a branch of the Vakataka dynasty, ruling in Central India. R. Sathianathier treated the Pallavas as Pulindas mentioned in the edicts of Asoka and alternatively he equates them with the Kurumbas also of Tondaimandalam. He connects clearly unconnected words like Pulinadu, Puliyurkkottam and the Pallavas.

The Andhra origin of the Pallavas mentioned by Nilakanta Sastri and concurred in by R. Gopalan and C. Minakshi proceeds on the basis of the occurrence of the earliest Pallava charters in Eastern Andhra region and the possibility of their having been subordinates of the Satavahana rulers before they set up autonomous government at Kanchi.

Further the fact that the Salankayanas and the Pallavas both claim the Bharadvaja gotra also has persuaded some scholars to posit a relationship between these two dynasties. Finally R. Raghava Iyengar, S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Rasanayagam hold that the Pallavas were Tamils and that their founding ancestor was Ilanthiraiyan, a scion of the Chola family. This theory believes in the Manimekalai story.

Those who believe in the Andhra origin advance the view that since the early charters of the Pallavas are in Prakrit or in Sanskrit and since their patronage of Sanskrit is more conspicuous than their affection for Tamil a non-Tamil origin has to be conceded and in view of their early subordination to the Satavahanas their Andhra origin gets confirmed.

Though theories like Pahlava origin and Vakataka association can be dismissed as too hazy and unsupported by sufficiently convincing data, it is difficult to choose among the more probable theories.

My own view of the matter is as follows: The Tiraiyar, i.e., the Tondaiyar of the Tondaimandalam region was connected with the Cholas through a Naga alliance as mentioned in the Manimekalai.

After Karikala, the great Chola king conquered the Tondaimandalam, the Ilantiraiyar who were originally subordinate chieftains of the Tiraiyar of Venkatraman, became the viceroys of the Cholas. The Tondaiyar who ruled the territory around Kanchipuram gave their clan name to that region and it became Tondaimandalam.

Tondai, the creeper-translatable into Sanskrit as Pallavam-was the totem of the Tondaiyar. Now these Tondaimans, therefore, were also Pallavas; as they had ruled over forest regions in Tondaimandalam before the forests were cleared by Karikala as stated in the Pattinappalai, they were also foresters, the Kadavar.

In the later part of the second century when Puhar was lost, the Chola capital had to be shifted and the Chola ruler taking advantage of the subordinate position of the Ilantiraiyar the then ruler of Kanchi made Kanchi his temporary capital.

Later on the Cholas retired to Uraiyur. When Kanchi was taken over as temporary capital by the Cholas, the Tiraiyar, moved north even beyond Venkatraman and carved out a small principality for themselves and conditioned by local circumstances called themselves Pallavas.

They followed the language, the administrative ways and the general public policies of the Satavahanas so much and for so long that when the Satavahana Empire collapsed and they became independent they had become completely dissociated from all connections with the Tamils. Since they were not direct descendants of the Cholas, they did not even remember the ancient Chola affinity, as the Telugu Cholas faithfully did.

By that time the Sangam age was drawing to a close. Economically weakened and politically exhausted Tamil rulers precariously perched on the famous Sangam thrones. The breakup of the Satavahana power in coastal Andhra, naturally led to internecine quarrels among the petty successor states from the Ikshvakus in the northernmost region to the Pallavas in the southernmost.

Deciding, therefore, to settle down in a new and more congenial area, the Pallavas moved southwards pushing the Kalavar of Venkatraman before them. These Kalavar later called Kalabhras fanned out into the Tamil country and defeating the Tamil rulers set up their own government in the middle and southern Tamilnadu as we have seen before.

The Pallavas clearing the ground before them reached the Tondaimandalam and made Kanchi once again their capital. Their early association with the Andhra region accounts for the occurrence of their early charters in the Andhra area.

The use of Prakrit and Sanskrit as the language of their charters was occasioned by their association with the Satavahanas. Even their political administrative system was fashioned after the Satavahana imperial system. They continued that tradition | even after their settlement at Kanchi.

The practice of issuing charters on copper plates and! Mentioning the exploits of kings or at least the names of the rulers in whose days the charters were granted was another Satavahana practice the Pallavas imitated. It may be supposed that the occupation of Kanchi which was in one sense a reoccupation occurred j sometime in the beginning of the fourth century AD.