Srimara Srivallabha

Srimara Srivallabha (r. c. 815–c. 862 AD )(Tamil:சீமாறன் சீவல்லபன்) was a Pandya king of early medieval south India.

Early life Srimara was famously known as the Parachakra Kolahala ("the Confounder of the Circle of his Enemies"). The Larger Sinnamanur Plates are the major source of information about this Pandya king. The Pallava version of the events related to this period can be found in the Bahur Plates of Nripatunga.

Srimara was born to Pandya king Parantaka Nedunchadaiyan (Varaguna I). Titles

Srimara Srivallabha, also known as Sadayan Maran, bore several epithets, including Ekavira (“unparalleled warrior”), Paracakra-kolahala (“one who caused confusion among enemy forces”), and Avanipasekhara (“protector of the earth”). His military successes appear to have enhanced his reputation and are considered to have furnished the occasion for the adoption of the title Paracakra-kolahala.

Military career The Larger Sinnamanur Plates (Sanskrit portion) tells that Srimara defeated the "Mayapandya", the Kerala (Chera), the king of Simhala, the Pallava and the Vallabha. The Tamil portion claims victories at Kunnur and Vizhinjam as well as in Sri Lanka. The inscription further attributes other victories to him and presents these achievements as enhancing his military reputation. According to the Dalavayapuram copper plates, the Pandyan king Srimara Srivallabha decisively defeated the Pallavas (Kadavas) at the Battle of Anur, asserting Pandyan control over the Kongu region near the Vaigai River.

Campaigns in Venad

Srimara Srivallabha is described in inscriptions as having conducted a campaign in the Venad region, during which he is said to have defeated the Kerala ruler at the battles of Kunnur and Vizhinjam.

Invasion of Sri Lanka

The Pandya victories in Lanka are corroborated by the Mahavamsa. The Pandyas retreated southwards into their home country (and the Pallava army even advanced as far the Vaigai). Srimara was then defeated by the Pallava king Nripatunga in the Battle of Arichil.

Conflict with Devapala

Some historians have connected the Pandya ruler Srimara Srivallabha with the Pala emperor Devapala in the context of military campaigns in early medieval India. The Siṇṇamanur copper-plate inscriptions of Srimara Srivallabha claim that he defeated a confederacy of rulers including the Gangas, Pallavas, Cholas, Kalingas and Magadhas at a battle identified with Kumbakonam. The reference to the “Magadhas” has been interpreted by some scholars as alluding to forces associated with the Pala kingdom of Magadha under Devapala.

Conversely, the Monghyr copper-plate inscription of Devapala states that he humbled the pride of the “Dravida” ruler, a term which has been variously interpreted. While some historians identify the “Dravida” with the Rashtrakutas, others, including R. C. Majumdar, suggest that it may refer to the Pandya ruler Srimara Srivallabha. Majumdar notes that the claim of Devapala’s southern conquests may contain exaggeration, but argues that it is difficult to dismiss entirely the possibility of a campaign reaching the far south.

Due to the nature of royal inscriptions, which often contain hyperbolic claims, and the absence of corroborating evidence, historians remain divided on the outcome of any conflict between the two rulers. As a result, no definitive conclusion can be drawn regarding whether Devapala defeated Srimara Srivallabha or vice versa.

Rise of the Cholas Chola Vijayalaya captured the city of Tanjore some time before 850 AD. The fight with the Muttarayars of Tanjore, probably owing allegiance to the Pandyas at this time, meant weakening of the Pandya influence to the north of Kaveri River. This also strengthened the Pallava position in the region. Army commanders of Sena II installed prince Varaguna II on the Pandya throne.

The Lankan sources and Pandyan sources vary each other. According to the K. A Nilakanta Sastry Pandyan sources are reliable. He mentions in his book named 'Pandyan Kingdom' that "The Pandyan side of the evidence makes the ruling king successful in repelling a Maya Pandya and thus keeping his throne to himself at the end of the struggle, the Ceylon account makes out a disaster of the first magnitude to the Pandyan kingdom from the story of the counter-invasion undertaken by Sena partly in support of the Pandya prince. There is no possibility of reconciling these accounts, one of them must be rejected as untrustworthy Now, on the face of it, it seems impossible to suppose that such a serious disaster befell the Pandya power in the reign of Srimara and that the Sinnamanur plates suppressed the truth or deliberately gave a false account of the reign. On the other hand, the Mahavamsa is a highly embellished and poetic account of the history of Ceylon. And one cannot help feeling that in this chapter of the Mahavamsa some transactions belonging to a later age (twelfth century A D.) have been repeated perhaps to take off the edge from the story of the conquest of Ceylon by the Pandya king, narrated a little earlier. When we come to the Pandyan civil wars of the twelfth century in which Ceylonese kings often interfered, we shall see that the Mahavamsa persistently colours the account favourably to the Ceylonese kings and commanders Our conclusion, therefore, is that Srimara did carry out a successful raid against Ceylon and that he repulsed the attempt at retaliation.