A tale of two inscriptions

This is a tale of two inscriptions in Indian history, which indirectly indicate an interesting possibility, and which give us a glimpse into the minds of our ancestors, and how history was viewed by them.

But first a bit of background to help understand this better. Sixth Century A.D. in South India was a period of major transitions. A powerful imperialistic impulse was driving through the region. Old, narrow regional chieftaincies were being swept away by a tidal wave of imperialism, conquests to unify. The two powers who were driving it soon clashed with each other to introduce an era of superpower clashes in South India - a trend which was to continue for another 1000 years till the advent of colonialism. One of the power was from the arid Deccan plateau - the northern part of the Dakshinapatha - South, while the other was from the rich fertile plains of deep South. The former were the Chalukyas, who created an empire from their capital Vatapi (modern day Badami in North Karnataka), while the latter were the Pallavas, who ruled from the ancient metropolis of Kanchi (near Chennai, Tamil Nadu).

The Chalukyas were clearly driven by imperialistic ambitions right from the accession of Pulakeshin I. But it was during the time of Pulakeshin II, his grandson (and my most favorite ruler), the most famous of all Chalukyas that the empire expanded in the north from Gujarat, Vidarbha right down to borders of modern day TN...it would roughly comprise today's southern part of Gujarat, entire Maharashtra, Telangana, coastal AP south till Krishna, parts of Rayalseema, entire Karnataka. Pulakeshi is famed in history for having defeated the great Harshavardhana who ruled over the entire North India for nearly half a century, but because of Pulakeshi couldnt venture into the south.

The Pallavas were a more ancient dynasty and their capital Kanchi had its past in hallowed antiquity of the Sangam Age. They had control of the entire southern half of the peninsula - entire TN and Kerala, most of Rayalseema, coastal AP north upto Krishna, southern parts of Karnataka and they extended their influence on Sri Lanka too.

Clearly both these superpowers were geared for a battle royale. Pulakeshin, ever aggressive, made the first move by attacking the Pallava northern territories. The Pallava king facing him was Mahendravarman, a man of great repute, both as a warrior and man of culture and letters. He is even known to have written the satirical play Mattavilasa. Mahendravarman was prompt to respond to the Chalukya aggression and several skirmishes happened between them. However Pulakeshin was able to inflict a crushing and decisive defeat on the Pallavas. Mahendravarman tried to salvage his position after the defeat and he resiliently defended himself, but he was heart broken after the defeat and soon passed away. His son Narasimhavarman swore revenge and soon enough he turned the tables on Pulakeshin. He allied himself with a Sinhala prince and defeated Pulakeshi in several engagements, before victoriously storming the capital Vatapi itself. Pulakeshi was slain in the battle, and Narasimhavarman destroyed Vatapi. Narasimhavarman recorded his victory in the capital of his enemies in an inscription in the Mallikarjuna Temple at Vatapi. And this was to remain a source of shame to the Chalukyas for all their history, which they strove to erase, but not by chiseling out that inscription, but in the way most unique to Indians as I shall narrate ahead.

The Chalukya aggression and the Pallava's violent retaliation was to spark of a rivalry of Southern Superpowers that continued in history, well after the demise of these dynasties. Successively the Deccan and Deep South rivalry was taken up by Rashtrakutas-Pallavas, Later Chalukyas-Cholas, Bahmani-Vijaynagar with its culmination with the Battle of Rakshasi-Tangadi (also known as Talikota) in 1565, almost a thousand years later.

The Chalukyas soon revived under Pulakeshi's son Vikramaditya I and his successors. Vikramaditya, Vinayaditya and Vikramaditya II took adequate revenge of the insult by defeating the Pallavas many times. The first and the last ruler, even occupied Kanchi - but it is the last ruler that we turn our attention to i.e. Vikramaditya II, the great-grandson of Vikramaditya I and great-great grandson of Pulakeshi for he was the man who caused to inscribe the second of our inscriptions.

After defeating the Pallavas and occupying Kanchi sometime between 740-743 (almost a century after Narasimhavarman had occupied Vatapi), Vikramaditya caused to inscribe on a pillar in the mandapa of the Rajasimhesvara Temple in Kanchi so as to record his victory over the Pallavas. But Vikramaditya was magnanimous for his inscription tells us that he didnt ransack or destroy the city, instead he is supposed to have made lavish gifts to the temple and Brahmanas and then left the city. But by inscribing in a temple in the capital of his enemies, he suitably took revenge upon them for the humiliation suffered by his forefathers.

Now comes the part, which for me is most interesting and significant. I have many a times, come across in Egyptian history for e.g. where a Pharaoh causes to obliterate records pertaining to some earlier Pharaoh whom he was supplanting, or was antagonistic to or with whose religious beliefs he didnt agree with. It was like erasing a person off history, erasing history itself.

And here in the Indian case, we find a scenario, where two dynasties, two lineages who were bitter rivals, with no love lost and who mercilessly take revenge, yet do not erase an inscription, a record of their enemies in their own capital city. The Chalukyas could have destroyed that inscription of Narasimhavarman, so as to leave no trace, even in memory of any subjugation by the Pallavas and the Pallavas could have done likewise - but no, they didnt do so and these records of history on slabs of stone have survived down to our times, affected only by the wear and tear of the elements but not by any human agency.

Typically in inscriptions - there are dire consequences threatened to people who seek to destroy it. So one could conjecture that the Pallavas or Chalukyas didnt destroy those embarrassing records because of superstitious beliefs, but I dont think that would be the case. These are men, who have cold-blooded political logic - they know that inscriptions are a media of propaganda and they have unhesitatingly used it to promote themselves, by exaggerating account of their victory, even claiming victory when they have been soundly defeated, by claiming descent from Gods of hoary past and concocting fanciful legends, ascribing themselves with achievements that are the height of hyperbole. They wouldnt have the slightest superstitious qualm to erase anything that is a cause of shame.

I would like to believe that it is because these rulers had great pride in their chivalry. They were not one to take an easy way out. In fact for them the pride was to erase the blot of a past defeat by taking appropriate revenge. Erasing that shameful record would have been the actions of a mean, cowardly person in their eyes. These were men, who boasted of their warrior exploits. Vikramaditya I gave himself titles like Ranarasika i.e. Enjoyer of Wars, Anivarita i.e. the Unopposed.
Erasing something on stone was not his way of settling scores, it was not the manly way!

Here are the two inscriptions. I couldnt find the exact wordings of Narasimhavarman's inscription, but was able to find a description of it in a website. Vikramaditya II 's inscription is the second one mentioned below.


First Inscription

"The earliest important epigraph in this volume is the Badami Rock Inscription (No. 1), engraved in the Pallava-Grantha characters of the 7th century A.D. The record is unfortunately mutilated owing to the effects of wind and rain to which the rock is exposed. But from what remains of it, it may be made out that Mahamalla [Nara?] simh who is described in the last 3 lines as the foremost Pallava king [Nara]-simhavishnu of the Bharadvaja-gotra occupied Vatapi and (probably seized) a pillar of victory standing in that place, in the 13th year of his reign. It is to be regretted that the next two lines which are in the Chalukyan alphabet of the period, and contained to Saka year combined with the regnal year of the king are completely damaged except the portion ‘Sakavarshe shashtyu’ i.e., Saka year . . . . . . .(increased by) sixty …. This date, to fall in the 7th century A.D. may be interpreted to range from Saka 560 to 569 in which case the lacuna may be supplied as shashty-uttara-pancha-satatame eka (up to nave)dhike. This would definitely place the occupation of Vatapi by Narasimhavarman I some time before or within the period Saka 560-69 (=A.D. 638-647), which must have corresponded to the 13th year of his reign. Since the Chinese pilgrim Hieun Tsiang visited Maharashtra when Pulakesin II was at the zenith of his power, i.e., in about A.D. 639, the above mentioned event must have taken place only after that date. Fleet has, on the strength of the non-mention of the sovereign power in the Kaira grant of Vijayavarma-raja, assigned the Pallava occupation of Vatapi to sometime before A,D. 643 and this apparently receives direct support from the expression shashty-utta[ra], etc., occurring in lines 7-8 of the present epigraph."

This is the description of the inscription attributed to the great Pallava king Narasimhavarman "Mahamalla" on a pillar in the Mallikarjuna Temple at Badami from http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_11/introduction.html


Second Inscription:
"Hail! Vikramaditya Satyasraya, the favorite of Fortune and of the earth (Sri Prithvivallabha), the Maharajadhiraja Paramesvara Bhattara, having captured Kanchi and having inspected the riches belonging to the temple of Rajasimhesvara, gave them again to god.

Those who destroy these letters and the stability of the king's charity which was thus given shall enter teh world of those who have killed the men of the assembly of this city (i.e. those who kill good, virtuous men)

This edict was written by the blameless and illustrious Anivaritapunyavallabha (name of the minister), under the authority of Vallabhadurjaya (a title of the king)"

On a pillar of the mandapa in front of Rajasimhesvara Temple, Kanchi
Epigraphica India Vol III Pg 359-60