Deccan in Dazzling light

What Anirudh Kanisetti has Presented in his Magnum opus, “ Lords of the Deccan” is a dramatic and sensational narration that keeps you on the edge of your seat trying to finish the book at one go.

Make no mistakes, Kanisetti is no academic Historian. He is a History writer who builds a chosen narration out of historical research by others. So it is natural it comes with a POV that is built on his interpretation and supposition. In this narration, Kanisetti purports to present a view on Medieval Deccan Powers, their rise, their expansion and their sunset. The Powers he means are the Chlaukyas and Rashtragudas. Every other Dynasty is presented from the viewpoint of the above mentioned Dynasties. He also Speaks about Cholas but about that, much later.

So with that in mind, he sets out to outline the Rise of Vatapi Chalukyas, and their Conquests over Pallavas. The popular narrative of Narasimha Varma Pallava taking revenge on Pulikesin II and the Sacking of Vatapi after which popular narrations consign the Chalukyas to oblivion, is now unravelled by him. This would now show us Vatapi Chalukyas in full Brilliance along with their Cousins across in Vengi in the east and Lata in the North. Their dazzling campaigns in the north and Successive Attacks on the Pallavas leading to the sunset of the illustrious Pallavas is all written with an extra dose of Sensationalism which he applies Generously across this book. He reveals a similarly engaging Narration on the Rashtragudas and Later the Kalyani Chalukyas, all of whom assume the title of Vallabhas connecting them back to Vatapi Chalukyas. For this brilliant narrative alone, this is definitely a book that can never be missed. In all of the narration, apart from showing each King, their personal attitudes and action, he brings out following aspects of the mediaeval political process.

• Every Dynasty, though started from a Humble beginning, needed the kings to create a shining narrative on their ancestry linking them to Puranic figures to capture the imagination of their Subjects and to Legitimise their rule. Every dynast that he presents in the book repeats this without fail.
• The Kings, starting with the Vatapi Chalukyas were increasingly powerful Propaganda masters who built narratives around their rule, their Conquests using Dharma Shashtra as the canvas irrespective of reality.
• The Temples, Offerings, Grants and various other Projects were all part of this Propaganda more than Religious adherence. They aligned with the Popular religious movements of the time and thereby weaved their propaganda into the religious narratives.

Expectedly this has created a lot of flutter and negative reactions at certain quarters. But the references he brings out to support his claims holds up the merit of these claims.

Dynasts other than the above mentioned Dynasties, seemed to have been swatted away with a left hand without batting an eyelid. The Kadambas, Gangas, Pallavas, even the Cholas. And Specifically Cholas.

I can understand that Kanisetti wanted to highlight Chalukyas and Rashtragutas. Rightfully so. I now have a much more holistic picture on Chalukyas and Rastragudas than what we have glimpsed from the lopsided window of Chola or Pallava conquest. I appreciate him for that.

While doing so, he had to downplay the glitter of the much glorified Imperial Cholas. That I tend to  understand. What I don’t understand is his feelings towards them and why he deliberately wants to treat Cholas with contempt and slight derision. I am not sure what they did to deserve this?

All the pontificating on the other side of Cauvery about how divine and rightful their wars against Chalukyas definitely is a Chola Propaganda that has stuck on across the century - I get it. These Narratives have glossed over gross violations and inhuman acts of the Chola Army over the civilians and soldiers alike on the Chalukyan side is a dreadful story. That very badly needed debunking and he has done a good job of it.

But then, as per his own narration, every other king did the same in a varied degree and covered it up with a generous dose of propaganda with elaborate Constructions, temples, grants to Bhramins and poetry, all registered on the edicts they laid. These were the norm well before a few centuries to that of the Cholas. Only that  the Imperial Cholas were much grander and smarter than their Predecessors. This was well documented by other researchers / writers who wrote on specific aspects of Tamizhagam like Kanakalatha Mukunt, Neelakanda Shashtri, Charles Allen and many others. But he dismisses all that. I can take that even if his sources for the narrative are not very convincing. He deserves his opinion.

One striking narrative is the aspect of the ascension of Kulothunga to the Chola throne. In the popular narrative it has always been maintained that Rajendra’s sons all agreed that they will form the Chalukyan Chola line with Kulothunga, their nephew from their sister's marriage to Vengi prince. It was assumed that they did not have male offspring and for that reason they had brought him up as Chola prince in delta. That all seemed too fantastic. In this book Kanisetti paints a far more complex picture of sibling rivalry between Rajendra’s sons who had sons who all somehow disappeared from history. That is definitely interesting.

However his derision is so evident when he decides to revert to addressing Kulothunga as Rajiga throughout the rest of his book.While he is generously grants every other king from Chalukyan and Rastraguda pantheon as Vallabha, it is curious why he reserves such a derision and disdain over a Chola emperor. I wonder what he did to earn that ire from Kanisetti?

His justification that Kulothunga was referred to that way in one of Chalukyan edicts looks flimsy and fickle. Apparently, Rajiga is a disdainful way Rajendran is called in Telugu areas -

Just like Choda for Chola and Temuli for Thamizh!

While doing So he also again paints “ Rajiga” as someone who is a vagabond away from his parents and is ‘hanging out’ with his maternal relatives and a doubtful character clinging to illegitimate aspirations. I simply would question that narration and assumption as to why the already crowded Chola hereditary contenders would have one more potential candidate among them? I think the real story might be somewhere in between.

But then he consigns Kulothunga - I to footnotes of Chola sunset which in itself is laughable and highly suspicious. It is well documented that Kulothunga - I took the Chola star to shining heights further. But again that was swatted away as fiction of the larger masses by Kanisetti.Of course the dynasty was completely obliterated only during Rajendra III by Maravarman Kulasekara Pandyan - I some generations later after Kulothunga-I. Even that did not matter to Kanisetti.

While Kulothunga reduced Kalyani Chalukyas to a smaller empire until Hoysalas completely decimated them ( of course their cousins in Gujarat still existed), they were still granted Emperor Status. Kanisetti does not extend that courtesy to Cholas.

I suspect he is catering to a specific audience banking on sensationalism. This contrasts with a much more balanced and nuanced approach some other contemporary historical writers like Manu Pillai take.

He takes a slice of history, generously extrapolates, further peppers it with liberal doses of sensationalism and serves it as a complete history wherever it suits him. This I did not find in Manu Pillai ( at least what I have read).

His effort in justifying his approach by referring to Peter Frankopan is very shallow. Frankopan’s Silk Road series, while grand and fantastic, looks at the specific slice of history from 20,000 feet high glossing over time and context to suit a narration. Kanisetti invoking that to justify his dismissal of traditional historians like Neelakanda Shashtri , Thapar et al is laughable and highly motivated. Like the propaganda of the emperors he presents, I suspect he is craving for legitimacy and establishing himself above the traditional historians. This is an act Even his recent sponsor William Dalrymple does not dare. Dalrymple, while a much more experienced, nuanced and engaging writer, is just that. A historical writer. Not a professional academic historian or original researcher by any stretch of imagination. For that matter, Frankopan also is that.

At this rate, the grand statement that Dalrymple used to introduce Kanisetti as one that wishes to change Delhi centric north narrative with a South Indian one falls flat and hollow. Within a few years we might even see him on the side of Vikram Sampath, Rajeev Malhotra et all and we should not be surprised at that.