Thread by @Ravilochanan86

There hv been attempts made to insert 2 kings between Pandya Jatila Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan aka Varaguna I and Srimara Srivallabha in the Pandyan dynasty list. Some justifications are given for this invention including the 'claim' that Jatila was not named Varaguna. - 1

2. It is claimed that a Rajasimha II was the son of Jatila Parantaka while a Varaguna I was son of Rajasimha II. Larger Sinnamanur Plates (LSP) are given as evidence for this. Let us look at the evidence in detail. The purvapaksha is as follows:

3. (i) LSP calls Varaguna as grandson of Jatila. Jatila was the name of Jatila Parantaka only in Pandyan dynasty. (ii) Jatila's own copper plates dont call him Varaguna though they give 20+ titles/names of Jatila Parantaka (iii) Arikesari Parankusa in LSP is Rajasimha I

4. This claim is made because they want to hold that Arikesari Parankusa Nedumaran did not fight against Pallavamalla and thus, it has to be his grandson Rajasimha I (iv) Tiruvellarai inscription of one Varaguna is dated as 824CE (Dhanur masa, Satabhishaj nakshatra and Tuesday).

5. This cannot be Jatila Parantaka as Jatila started his rule in 768 CE and the Tiruvellarai inscription calls it as inscription of Varaguna's 13th year of reign. (v) Varaguna's inscriptions show several gifts to Shiva temples and also they are found in Chola & Pallava countries

6. So, it is taken to mean that Varaguna ruled when Pallavas were weak. So, they hold Varaguna as contemporary of Dantivarma Pallava. Now, let us look at how each and every one of these points are wrong and even baseless. (i) Jatila is the Sanskritized form of S(Ch)adaiyan.

7. Kochadaiyan Ranadhiran was indeed the grandfather of Rajasimha I as seen in Velvikkudi Copper plates of Jatila Parantaka. So, Rajasimha I was indeed son of a Jatila (Kochadaiyan Ranadhira). No need to invent a Rajasimha (not found in any inscription) as son of Jatila Parantaka

8. (ii) Jatila's 2 copper plates may not have called him Varaguna but they have indeed called him Srivara. Also, a Vaishnava divyadesam with agraharam was established by a Varaguna with the name Srivaragunamangai which could have been done only by this Jatila Parantaka Varaguna

9. Varaguna I's dates given by these scholars is too late for the date of Nammazhvar who has sung about this temple. Moreover, they hold tis 'invented' Varaguna I as a great Shaiva whereas Jatila Parantaka was a Parama Vaishnava - the settlement fits Parantaka better

10. (iii) there is no evidence which forces us to invent a Nelveli battle between Rajasimha I and Pallavamalla. Only one Pandyan king is famous for Nelveli battle and he is Arikesari Parankusa Maravarma. Pallava copper plates of Udayendram mark it as a battle of Pallavamalla

11. LSP also calls Sankaramangai as another battle of this Arikesari where he defeated Pallavas. Udayendram plates of Pallavas also mentions this battle. Velvikkudi plates say that Arikesari defeated Vilveli at Nelveli. The Pallava general in this battle was the ruler of Vilvala

12. It is indeed fitting that he is called Vilveli. Vala means enclosure in Sanskrit - which can be called as Veli in Tamil. Velvikkudi plates make it clear that Arikesari fought Pallavamalla's general in Nelveli. LSP refers to Sankaramangai battle as well. No confusion here

13. Arikesari Parankusa, in his last years, fought Pallavamalla. His grandon Rajasimha I as well as Jatila also fought Pallavamalla. Pallavamalla (Nandivarman II) ruled for 65 yrs. Hence, this is quite possible. (iv) Tiruvellarai inscription is dated in the format 4+9 year

14. this 4+x format is typical of Varaguna II who started his reign in 862 CE (based on Aivarmalai inscription). The specifics of the inscription - Dhanur masa, Satabhishaj nakshatra and Tuesday match for 875 CE as well which is indeed the 13th year of Varaguna II's reign.

15. Thus, the Thiruvellarai inscription belongs to Varaguna II only. This is no evidence for a Varaguna I claimed to be distinct from Jatila Parantaka. (v) Most of the grants to Siva temples are also dated in the format 4+x year only. They should be assigned to Varaguna II

16. Varaguna II was indeed campaigning in Chola and Pallava territories in support of Nrpatunga Pallava against Kampavarma Pallava till Varaguna was defeated at Sripurambiyam. Hence, presence of his inscriptions in these territories is understandable.

17. Dantivarma lost his lands to Srikantha Chola of Potappi clan (Telugu Cholas) and regained them towards the end of his rule. There is no evidence to claim that a Pandya Varaguna I had occupied core Pallava lands during Danti's reign.

18. In fact, Dalavaypuram plates of Pandyas make it clear that Srikantha Chola was ruling Pallava and Chola lands in first half of 9th century. This Srikantha's daughter married Srimara Srivallabha Pandya who has a son Parantaka Viranarayana from her.

19 .The most clinching evidence in favor of the claim that Jatila Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan was the father of Srimara Srivallabha comes from Dalavaypuram plates. They state that Srimara was born to Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan who fought Pallavas at Karur. This is a direct evidence

20. Tirumangai Azhvar mentions that Pallavamalla fought against Pandya at Karur. Jatila Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan seems to be the king who had fought in this battle. The claim that Varaguna I and Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan are 2 different persons is put to rest by Dalavaypuram plates.

21. Jatila Parantaka was also called Srivara and Srivaraguna. His son was Srimara and Varaguna II was the son of Srimara. Manikkavasagar was a contemporary of Varaguna II. Arikesari Parankusa being an adversary of Pallavamalla has several consequences. Shall write later on them

@ChithraMadhavan @veejaysai @aravindgov