Durvinita and Vikramaditya I

By N. VENKATARAMANAIYA, M.A.

There are very many references to the Gangas in the inscriptions of the early Chalukyas of Badami. Kirtivarman I is said to have conquered them. They appear to have been the feudatories of the Chalukyas under Mangalesa, but the civil war between Mangalesa and his nephew had so weakened the central government, that all subject kingdoms rose in rebellion, and asserted their independence. The Gangas took advantage of the opportunity to regain their lost freedom. Therefore, Pulakesin II when he ascended the throne, after the death of his uncle, was obliged to reconquer all the former possessions of his family. Among the countries which he conquered, Gangavadi was one. The Chalukya inscriptions do not mention the name of the king who was ruling over Gangavadi. However, some of the Canarese inscriptions published by the Mysore Government appear to throw some new light on the subject. They tell us that some of the Ganga kings were related to the Chalukyas by marriage alliances. We have for example the following allusion in an inscription (1).

Vasudhage Ravana-Pratiman emba negartteya kaduvettiyam
Visasana-rangadol pididu tanna tanujeya putranam prati
Shthisijayasimhavallabhanan-anvaya-rajyadol urbbiyol vigur

Bisidan id en agurbbo nija-dor-baladunnati Durvinitana.

It has been translated by Rice thus: ‘Seizing on the field of slaughter Kaduvetti of Kanchi, who was celebrated as a Ravana to this earth, and setting his own daughter's son, he became formidable in the world, in the hereditary kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha.’ (2) The translation is a little ambiguous, and it requires slight modification. It describes two events which are connected with each other: (a) the seizure of Kaduvetti of Kanchi on the field of battle, and (b) the establishment of his own daughter's son on the throne of the hereditary kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha. Durvinita, the king of the Gangas, became famous in the world by these achievements. The translation of the verse must be slightly altered in order that it may bring out the sense of the original.

‘Having captured the Kaduvetti of Kanchi, who is celebrated as Ravana to the earth, on the field of battle; and having established his own daughter's son in the hereditary kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha; (he Durvinita) became formidable in the world.’

The allusion contained in the verse requires some explanation. One is tempted to identify the hereditary kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha with the kingdom of Kanchi, the king of which was captured by Durvinita on the field of battle. Such an identification is a mistake. The hereditary kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha has nothing to do with the Kaduvettis of Kanchi. It is clear from the verse that Jayasimhavallabha is the founder of a dynasty. Who is he? The author of the verse could not have referred to the Kaduvetti or Pallava dominions as the hereditary kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha, because there was no king of that name in the Pallava geneology. Vallabha, however, is the usual suffix with which all the names of the early Chalukya kings of Badami terminate. The Kingdom of the Chalukyas is sometimes called the Vallabha kingdom, (3) and the kings are merely styled as Vallabhas (4). In fact, the Aihole inscription of Pulakesin II (5) says, that the title of Prithvivallabha became ‘an appropriate title to the Chalukyas, on account of the conquests of the members of that race.’ The founder of this dynasty is Jayasimha-vallabha; and the author of the verse in question refers to the kingdom of the Chalukyas when he speaks of the hereditary Kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha.

Now, which of the Chalukyan kings of Badami was the daughter's son of Durvinita? As the verse does not mention any name in this connection, it is not easy to find the name of the king referred to therein. We must get at it indirectly, A survey of the history of the Badami Chalukyas shows that there were only two occasions when the heir to the throne stood in need of external help. Once, at the close of the reign of Mangalesa who attempted to prevent his nephew Pulakesin II from ascending the throne. Pulakesin was ‘either banished by Mangalesa’ or ‘he voluntarily banished himself.’(6) A civil war broke out in the Chalukyan kingdom, during the course of which Mangalesa was killed, and Pulakesin II became king in his place. Was Durvinita one of the ‘neighbouring princes’ whom Pulakesin asked for assistance during the days of his exile? We must answer this question in the affirmative, if we believe that Pulakesin was the daughter's son of Durvinita. But was he Durvinita's daughter's son?

Pulakesin was a contemporary of Durvinita. Dubreuil places his date between 605 and 650 A. D. Pulakesin II reigned from 609 to 642 A. D. Therefore, they were contemporary princes reigning over two neighbouring kingdoms. The same fact is established by a passage in the Avanti-sundari-katha of Dandin. Regarding one of his ancestors, the Poet Bharavi, Dandin narrates the following story:

‘In the city of Kanchi in the South of India, ruled a king of the Pallavas named Simhavishnu who is a great patron of learning. One day a stranger appeared before him and recited a Sanskrit verse in praise of the Narasimha incarnation of Vishnu. On hearing the lofty sentiments expressed in the verse, the king enquired of the stranger who the author of the verse was. He replied thus:-

‘In the north-west, there is a town named Anandapura, the crest jewel of Arya-desa, from which a family of the Brahmans of the Kausika gotra migrated and settled at Achalapura. Narayanaswamin, a member of the family, had a son named Damodara, who became a great scholar, and was known as Bharavi. He became a friend of king Vishnuvardhana. On one occasion, he accompanied the king on a hunting expedition, and while in the forest had to eat animal flesh. To expiate this sin, he set out on a pilgrimage, and finally settled in the court of Durvinita. He is the author of this verse.’ (7).

We understand from this passage that Bharavi, the great-grandfather of Dandin, the author of Avanti-sundari-katha, lived at the courts of two kings, Vishnuvardhana of Achalapura, and Durvinita, the Western Ganga monarch. Bharavi was subsequently invited by Simhavishnu, the Pallava king of Kanchipura, to come and reside at his court. Bharavi accepted the invitation, and migrated to the capital of the Pallava king.

It is clear from the above that Vishnuvardhana, Durvinita, and Simhavishnu were contemporaries. There is no doubt about the identity of Durvinita and Simhavishnu; Vishnuvardhana the king of Achalapura, has been identified with Vishnuvardhana, the brother of Pulakesin II, the king of the Chalukyas. It is also clear from this that Pulakesin II was a contemporary of Durvinita and Simhavishnu. The question of the contemporaneity of Pulakesin II and Durvinita being thus settled, we proceed to enquire whether Pulakesin was the daughter's son of Durvinita. It. could not have been possible for them to be related to each other as grandson and grandfather. We must remember that Durvinita came to the throne about 605 A. D., and he ruled for 45 years. It is probable that Durvinita was a comparatively young man at the time of his accession, and he could not have had a grown-up grandson like Pulakesin at the time. Moreover, in one of his inscriptions (8), Pulakesin II mentions a prince of the Sendraka family as his maternal uncle. Therefore, the mother of Pulakesin could not have been a Ganga princess.

The second occasion when a Chalukyan prince stood in need of external help came at the close of the reign of Pulakesin II, which ended disastrously. Pulakesin was defeated in a series of battles by the Pallava king, Narasimhavarman I. It is said that Siruttonda-nayanar, who was a general of the Pallava king destroyed the fort of Vatapi, the Western Chalukya capital, and ‘captured the king (Pulakesin II) alive.' Dr. V. A. Smith is of opinion that he ‘presumably killed Pulakesin II’ (9). All the southern provinces of the Chalukyan kingdom were annexed by the Pallavas. So much we understand from inscriptions of Chalukya Vikramaditya I, the son and successor of Pulakesin II. It is said in the Sohrab copper plates that he recovered ‘the proper glory of his line’ after defeating the Pallava king (or the king of the Pallavas) who, by contempt of a family as pure as the rays of the moon, was a cause of destruction. (10) In the Talamanchi plates (11) he is said to have ‘gained for himself the royalty of his father which had been interrupted by the confederacy of three kings.’ According to the Togarchedu plates, he seized the city of Kanchi after defeating ‘the leader of the Pallavas who had been the cause of the discomfiture and the destruction of that family (of the Chalukyas) which was as pure as the rays of the moon’ (12). It is obvious from these references that the Pallavas occupied a part of the Chalukyan kingdom and it was from them that Vikramaditya I. recovered it. We must now attempt to discover the Pallava king or kings with whom he fought for the recovery of his ancestral kingdom. The Gadval plates (13) tell us that he ‘crushed the glory of Narasimha’, ‘caused the prowess of Mahendra to be dissolved,’ and ‘subdued Isvara by Polity.’ Thus he was the contemporary of three Pallava kings of Kanchi, -Narasimhavarman I, Mahendravarman II and Paramesvaravarman I. The dates of these kings are;

Narasimha I 630-668
Mahendra II 668-670
Paramesvara I 678-690

Vikramaditya I ruled from 654 A. D. to 680 A. D. His, struggle with the Pallavas began much earlier than 654 A. D. and it did not come to a close before 678 A. D. The struggle between the Pallavas and the Chalukyas must have been running its course during the reigns of Chandraditya and Adityavarman, the two elder brothers of Vikramaditya. There is some reason for us to suppose that there was a disputed succession after the death of the infant son of Chandraditya. Adityavarman and Vikramaditya began to fight for the throne. In this struggle Vikramaditya was successful: hence the boast, ‘Sarvan dayadan vijitya’ (14)

It was during this period that the sons of Pulakesin II must have stood in need of outside help to fight with the powerful enemy of their family. Have we any reason to suppose that Durvinita assisted Vikramaditya? There is no clear proof of this. But it is probable that he had given Vikramaditya some assistance. The reasons for thinking so are three:

(1) Durvinita was alive for 8 years from 642 to 650 A. D. during the period of interregnum in the Chalukyan kingdom.

(2) The Nagar inscription says that he vanquished a Kaduvetti of Kanchi who was a powerful king, and a terror to all his neighbours. So much is implied in the sentence, ‘the Kaduvetti who is celebrated as Ravana to this earth’. Ravana was a fierce and mighty demon who was a terror to all the kingdoms on earth. To be compared with him, this Kaduvetti, the opponent of Durvinita, must have been very powerful, and he must also have inspired great fear in the minds of his enemies.

(3) A stone inscription of the time of the Ganga king Nirvinita, who is identified with Avinita says that his younger son assumed from a Kaduvetti of Kanchi, the Kongu Nadu: ‘Sri Nirvinita's younger (or little) son assumed the Kongani crown, from the people of Kaduvetti and the Pallava king’’ (15). Mr. Rice is of opinion that he ‘obtained the Kongani crown...superseding the rightful heir’ i.e., Durvinita. (16)

In view of these three reasons, we have to ask ourselves which of the Pallava kings among Durvinita's contemporaries could be described as 'Ravana Pratimanemba'. The reign of Durvinita extended, as we had seen, from A.D. 605 to 650 A.D. There ruled at Kanchi, according to Dubreuil, (17) two kings, during this period.

Mahendra I. 600-630
Narasimha I. 630-668

But the Avanti-sundari-katha says that Simhavishnu, the father ofMahendra I, was a contemporary of Durvinita. If we accept 605 A.D. as the date of Durvinita's accession to the throne, we must admit that Simhavishnu continued to rule forsometime after 605. According to the Avanti-sundari-katha, Vishnuvardhana who is identified with Pulakesin II's brother ofthat name was the king ofAchalapura, the modern Elichpur. Vishnuvardhana (Kubja) was his brother's viceroy in that region until 616-17 A.D. Therefore the events described in the Avanti-sundari-katha must have taken place between 605 and 617. They could not have taken place before 609-10 A.D. because Pulakesin II did not become king until that year. Five or six years must have elapsed before Bharavi finally migrated to Kanchipuram after leaving Achalapura. Even if we suppose that Simhavishnu was alive foronly one year after Bharavi's migration, he could not have died before 617 or 618 A. D. Therefore, we are obliged to shorten the reign of Mahendra I according to Dubreuil's chronology by 18 years. Therefore, the Pallava kings who were the contemporaries of Durvinita were.

Simhavishnu ? - 618 A. D.
Mahendra I. 618 A. D. - 630 A. D.
Narasimha I. 633 A. D. - 668 A. D.

Which of these three was the Kaduvetti with whom Durvinita fought? Could it be Simhavishnu? He is said to have conquered the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras. But there are certain facts which go against this supposition. The Kaduvetti, the foeof Durvinita, is compared to Ravana, who was cruel and terrible. There is nothing in the inscriptions to show that Simhavishnu's invasion was ruthless in its character. Again, the verse quoted fromthe Nagar inscription connects the two events, the defeat ofKaduvetti and the installation of Durvinita's daughter's son in the hereditary kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha as cause and effect. That is, Durvinita fought with the Pallava king on behalf of his daughter's son. The defeat of the Pallava king resulted in the establishment of his daughter's son in the Chalukyan kingdom.

Durvinita must have been a comparatively young man during Simhavishnu's reign and he could not then have had a grandson. Therefore Simhavishnu must be left out of consideration. Mahendra I is never represented as a great conqueror: there is some reason to believe that Pallava arms suffered reverses during his reign. This process of elimination leaves behind Narasimha I as the only person who could have been the adversary of Durvinita. We must now see whether he answers to the description of the Kaduvetti of the Nagar inscription. There can be no doubt about the extensive conquests of Narasimha. His victories over Pulakesin II have already been noticed. He annexed all the southern provinces of the Chalukyan Kingdom. The Kongu-nadu appears to have formed an integral part of his dominions. The Pallava navy conquered Ceylon. Thus he was a great conqueror, and he must have inspired fear in the minds of neighbouring princes. Moreover, the Pallava invasion appears to have been ruthless in its character. The inscriptions of Vikramaditya I accuse the Pallavas of having confiscated the property even of the Brahmans and the gods. The Chalukyan capital was destroyed and probably the king himself was killed. All these actions made the conqueror appear to his enemies as a demon. Therefore he was compared to Ravana, the destroyer of the temples and the Brahmans. The comparison with Ravana suits Narasimha I very well.

The Kaduvetti whom Durvinita defeated was must therefore have been none other than Narasimha I. Before his defeat by the Ganga king, Narasimhavarman was the undisputed master of the whole of Southern India. He was also ruling over the southern provinces of the Chalukyan kingdom. It was, therefore, necessary to defeat him first, to help the Chalukyan king to recover his ancestral dominions. Durvinita attacked him first and defeated him. The victory of the Ganga king resulted in the restoration of his daughter's son (Vikramaditya I) to the hereditary dominions of Jayasimhavallabha.

Was Vikramaditya I the daughter's son of Durvinita? It is very probable that he was.

1. Durvinita was a contemporary of Pulakesin II and Vikramaditya I, the descendants of Jayasimhavallabha, the founder of the Chalukyan dynasty. And he was old enough to be the grandfather of the latter.
2. Durvinita had a daughter's son whom, by defeating a Pallava king, he restored to the hereditary kingdom of Jayasimhavallabha.
3. Vikramaditya had to wage war upon the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I, who killed his father and annexed a large portion of his kingdom, to regain the lost glory of the Chalukyas.
4. The Ganga king Durvinita was deprived of the Kongu-nadu, which the Pallava king gave to his younger brother.

Vikramaditya I was, therefore, very probably the daughter's son of Durvinita. It is interesting to note that the Gadval Plates mention a Ganga Mahadevi, at whose request Vikramaditya I made a grant of land to the Brahman, Kanhasarman. How this lady was related to Vikramaditya is not mentioned in the inscription. It has been conjectured that she was ‘one of the queens of Vikramaditya.’ She must have been his mother. If this surmise is correct, we have direct proof of the relationship of Durvinita and Vikramaditya.

1. EC. VIII. Nagar 35, part i, 250.
2. IB., part i, 135.
3. SII. i.
4. EI. XIV.
5. EI. VI.
6. EI. vi.
7. MYS. A. S. A. R.
8. (8) EI. vii, 50.
9. Oxford History of India.
10. EG. viii, (2), 175-6.
11. EI. ix.
12. J B B R A S., xvi. 232.
13. EI. x 100
14. J B B R A S.. xvi.
15. EC. vi, cg. 50.
16. E I xiv.
17. Dubreuil, Pallava.