________________
No. 31] TWO PANDYA INSCRIPTIONS FROM DINDIGUL
273 contemporary rulers? That Varaguna was a contemporary of Npipatunga is proved by the Tiruvadi inscription dated in the 18th year of the reign of the Pallava king. The Bahur Plates' dated in the 8th year of Nripatunga refer to the aid rendered by the Pallava king to a Pandya. The passage yat-prasādāj=jitā sēnā Pāndyēna samare purā of the record suggests that the Pandya 'could have been no other than the one who figures in the Tiruvadi inscription, i.e. Varaguna II and that the Pallava by whose favour the other (i.e. Pandya) obtained an army formerly was his ally. What could have been the occasion for the Pallava to have gone to the aid of the Pāņdys? In all probability it was the occasion of the Ceylonese intrusion on behalf of the ill-treated' Pāņdu prince who sought their aid. NakkamPuljan claims to have led a contingent of elephants to Sennilam to the succour of his liege Varaguņa-mahārāja. The record is silent about the source of this reinforcement. Could it have been the favour of the Pallava ? Granting that the arguments advanced above are admissible, the event that appears to have culminated in Varaguna-mahārāja regaining his throne may be reconstructed thus : an unknown Pandya ptince, obviously a pretender appealed to the Simbala king Sēna II for help; the Singhalese army, under its commander met the Pāņdya king Srimāra in battle, wounded him and having set up the Pāņdu prince on the throne, was marching back to its country. At this juncture Varaguna-mahärāja, the legitimate heir, aided by Pallava Nçipatunga with a contingent of elephants led by Nakkam-Pullan, routed the pretender as well as the Singhalese and regained the throne. It appears thus that this might be the event recorded in the Perumbulli epigraph and therefore the act of Nakkam-Pullan towards the Simhalarāja in the context of the situation discussed could hardly have been friendly. Indeed it could not have been otherwise in view of the continued loyal relationship that existed between the members of this family and the Pāņdya kings for four generations.
Among the places mentioned in the records viz. Kulumbūr, Iļavai, Viļiñam, Tirukkudamūkku, Salagrāmam, Sennilam, and Palli-nadu, the identity of Kulumbür or Sennilam is still unknown. Sennilam is one of the places where the Pandyas are known to have fought with their foes on more than one occasion. Māsavarman, the father of Ko-chChadaiyan Ranadhiran fought here against an unnamed enemy. Parāntakan Vira Nārāyaṇa Sadaiyan, the successor of Varaguna II is also known to have shown his prowess in archery in the battle-field of Sennilam.
As for Idavai two different identifications have been proposed so far. One of them identifies the place with Idavai in Manni-nādu on the basis of an inscription of a later date which gives also the other name of the village & Sölāntaka-chaturvēdimangalam. The other identifies it with Idaiyaffumangalam in the Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District on the basis of nearly contemporary inscriptions copied from the region. Both the identifications have got their own merits
18.1.I., Vol. XII, No. 71; A. R. Ep., 1922, p. 1071.
Above, Vol. XVIII, pp. 10 ff; 8.1.1., Vol. II, p. 613 ff.
• The absence of any records of Nripatunga dated between his 26th (above, Vol. IV, p. 180 f.) and 41st (4. R. Ep., 1943-44, No. 138) regnal years, the provenance of Aparajita's inscriptions ranging upto his 18th rognal year within parts of the Chingleput and the Chittoor Districts, and Varaguma's encounter with Aparajitu at Sripurambiyam, and the uncertainty of the latter's relationship with the members of the main line, all those faotors seem to point to Varagupa's sustained friendship with Nripatunge.
• It is natural that the Cilavamaa keeps silent over the reverses of its armies on this occasion as well as over the fate of the Pända prince. Could the former be Ugra-pandya ?
. Above, Vol. XVII, p. 300, line 56. .8. 1. I., Vol. III, p. 455, 11. 117-118.
4. R. Ep., 1941, No. 42 See 8I1, Vol. XIV, No. 57. . Above, XXVIII, p. 41.
