Indian Antiquary Vol 59

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 171

August, 1930)
THE ORIGIN OF THE PALLAVAS
157
and a change of outlook that the kings of Kanci, during this obscure period, appear to have neglected Tamil literature. They seem to have actively participated in the spread of the culture in which they were then steeped. The presence of Sanskrit poets in the court at Kañci proves no more than an interest in the culture that these poets represented, and it is not valid to argue from that that the kings were Sanskrit-speaking men from the north. On the other hand, the kings of the East did not at any time discriminate in the matter of the language of the poets whom they encouraged at their courts. Kamban, the Tamil poet, was welcomed and honoured by Rudra I, the king of Warangal, and a Tamil astrological work called Sarajoti Malai received its imprimatur in the court of Paråkrama Bahu, the Simhalese king of Dambadeniya. The decadence of Tamil literature synchronised with the rise of the Pallava power, and hence the absence of Tamil poets in the court of Kañci.
The fact that the members of the ruling dynasty of Kanci were not well-disposed towards their neighbours, the Cholas, and that within a short time they became the over-lords of the Chola kingdom, can be easily inferred from the total absence of any mention of Kanci kings in Tamil literature and from the disappearance of the Cholas as powerful rulers after the second or the third century A.D.
The enmity of the early Pallavas towards the Tamil kings is not at all surprising and is no argument to disprove my theory. When we know that members of the same branch of a family often fall out in the deadly struggle for power and glory, it is impossible to expect members of two different branches and one a bastard line-to maintain cordial relations for any length of time. The futility of this objection was foreseen by Mr. S. M. Edwardes when he stated that the origin of the Pallavas might perhaps offer an additional reason for the enmity which unquestionably existed between the Pallavas and the Tamil kingdoms. The pure branch of the Cholas was cut off within a very short time, and the authority of the Pallavas extended over that kingdom, too, almost to the end of the ninth century.
If the earliest Tirayar of Káñci were patrons of Tamil literature and the later Pallavas of Sanskrit, it is not necessary to premise a change of dynasty in order to explain the decay of Tamil and the rise of Sanskrit. It is well known that this depended solely on the influence wielded by the Brahman ministers, officers and poets who thronged the court. Did not some of the later Pallava kings come under the influence of Tamil ministers and did they not encourage Tamil men of letters and cause inscriptions to be set up in Tamil? Are we, therefore, to infer that these kings were members of a different dynasty ?
There was nothing to prevent the Pallava Tirayar who ruled over Kanci from the third quarter of the second century to the first quarter of the fourth century A.D. from manufacturing a gotra genealogy and calling themselves Pallavas as they slowly rose to power and sovereignty. The fact that the name Tondaimân' is identical with Pallava,' as admitted by Dr. S. K. Aiyangar and as seen from the names of several chiefs and generals who flourished under the later Pallavas and the Cholas, and that Iļam Tirayan was the earliest Tondaimán, shows that the earliest kings of Kafci were called Pallava Tirayar,' to distinguish them from Tirayar who hailed from other countries. Merely because the earliest kings of Kanci were called Tirayar in Tamil literature, and the later kings called themselves Pallavas in their charters, it does not follow that the Pallavas belonged to a different dynasty to the Tondaimáns who were called Tirayar. Vişnugopa of Kanci was not described either as a Tirayan or as a Pallava in the Allahabad pillar inscription, whereas Sivaskandavarman, who was a king of KAñci before Visnugopa, is called a Pallava in the Maida võlu plates. It does not, therefore, negative the fact that Vişnugopa was a Pallava
If the dynasty of Ilam Tirayan continued to rule at Kanci, Bappadeva, the father of Sivaskandavarman, and the earliest Pallava king to be mentioned in the charters, must have been the son or grandson of Iļam Tirayan. Had the dynasty not continued, and had another dynasty supervened, it must bave been immediately after Ilam Tirayan's death. It Bappadeve