To claim that the Ćāḷukyās were originally agriculturalists who formed into bands of brigands going about looting villages and towns, amassing wealth which emboldened them to lay claim to the terrorized territories as sovereigns, legitimised by védic sacrifices requires quite a stretch of imagination. Anirudh Kanisetty’s book ‘Lords of the Deccan’ paints such an atrocious picture of the protagonist Ereya’s grandfather Pulakeshin I and his followers. Hypothesizing Pulakeshin’s early years, Anirudh writes,

“In the early years of this man’s career, the agriculturists who followed him were probably clad in little more than a loincloth, armed with just a spear, bow, or a crudely shaped sickle as they attacked villages first, then towns, then more powerful warlords, seeking to conquer fertile land and seize loot. With each successful raid, they grew progressively wealthier and more scarred, decorated with the weapons and jewellery of fallen foes. They traded the red dirt of the farm for the scented body paints of the wealthy, hired attendants to oil them, bathe them, and cook for them. Perhaps they married cultured ladies from the families of small-town aristocrats, perhaps they kidnapped women from the poorest of villages and enslaved them.”

This fantasy, however, is not devoid of the standard Dravidianist (Aryan invasionist) stereotypes.

“Being from the Deccan, he was almost certainly duskier and shorter than his rival. The chiefs of this arid land, Pulakeshin included, could hardly match the spectacular finery in which the flashy lords of the north paraded around in 618 CE.”

To counter each distortion/stereotype the book is pregnant with will require another book of equal size, if not lengthier. In this essay, I focus on the alleged ‘low-caste’ agriculturalist origins of Ćāḷukyas.

The agriculturist theory of origin is based on the perceived phonetical closeness of the word Ćāḷukya to the Kannaḍa word salki which means ‘plough’. Salképpa being a common last name in Karṇāṭaka lent a semblance of credence to the claim. However, there’s no explanation to the occurrence of conflicting claims that point to their kshatriya origins in the same sentence that repeats in almost every inscription of the Ćāḷukyas of Bādāmī. Why did they find it compelling to retain an epithet that points to their humble origins and low rank even after allegedly inventing legends that connect them to the kśatriyas of Ayōdhyā is a question that is conveniently set aside.

It is neither unprecedented nor uncommon that a clan of non-kśatriyās seizes sovereign power by working up the ranks and by worsting rival kśatriyās. But in all those cases, the challenger proudly proclaims his varṇa status and claims to elevate it above the kśatriyās. It is also not uncommon that such non-kśatriyā clans get conferred the kśatriya status in due course of time at which point they tend to downplay their non-kśatriyā origins.

The earliest inscription found of the Ćāḷukyas introduces Ćāḷukya Vallabhéśwara as having made the Vātāpi hill into an unbreachable fort from above as well as below. The king, identified as Pulakeshin I, is said to have performed śrauta sacrifices like aśvamédha and had been ritually reborn as the Supreme Lord (Vallabhā) by performing the Hiraṇyagarbha rite. Clearly, this is a grand declaration of the dvija status of the claimant earned by performing the elaborate Golden Egg ritual. As such, an exalted reference to a previous occupation, as undistinguished as ‘tiller of soil’, is not only out of place but also absurd. This places the salki (plough) interpretation of the word Ćāḷukya in a questionable position. A metamorphosis of sorts in a single lifetime, from a benevolent tiller of soil, to pillager of villages and towns, to builder of forts and cities, to performer of védic sacrifices, is too fantastical a description even for a Central Asian invader (like Rudradaman, Mihirakula), let alone a medieval Hindu king.

That said, there are ample instances of Hindu clans proudly proclaiming pastoral origins alongside claims to kśatriyā-hood. The Ābhīras, Rāśtrakūṭas, Hoyasaḷas etc., claimed to have descended from cowherd communities. However, that is just another grand claim to kśatriyā-hood and demigod status based on purāṇic legends that attempt to connect them with the yaduvanśhi kśatriyās of yore to whom Bhagawān Vāsudéva belonged. It would be remiss of a researcher to treat these as claims to humble origins. It is not any cowherd community that their claims lay at. It is the much-eulogised yādavās of purāṇic lore that they yearn to belong to.

Also, it is striking that medieval cowherd communities whose charitable donation records we find in considerable number in temples glittering across the peninsula seldom claim descent from the fabled yaduvanśhīs. All this points to a not-so-humble pastoral origin that is concomitant with a yaduvanśhī kśatriyā claim. This remarkable consistency demonstrated by medieval scribes of lithic records is in stark contrast with puerile modern-day scholarship which often ascribes class identities to ruling dynasties by misinterpreting their origin claims.

As for their origins, the Ćāḷukyas of Bādāmī claim descent from one Hārīti, a royal matriarch from antiquity whose bosom fostered the progenitors of a string of illustrious dynasties. The matronym, Hārītīputra finds mention in the royal panegyrics of at least half a dozen dynasties of Deccan. Although matronymic references find mention numerously and more consistently in the regnal records of the Sātavāhanas and their successors like the Āndhra Ikśvākus, the particular matronym in question, Hārītīputra, is possibly of a Ćédī-Kaḷiṇga coinage that was in use in the pre-Śātavāhana era Kriśṇā-Gōdāvarī basin of peninsular India. The Vélpūru inscription of Airamahārāja Hārītīputra Mānasadā is the first available lithic record to mention the matriarch Hārīti. Mānasadā being among the later Sadā kings, we can only surmise that this matronym was in use much earlier than the time when the said inscription was committed to stone.

The next mention of this matronym is found in Vākāṭakā inscriptions describing Vākāṭakā Pravaraséna I who is fashioned as a Samrāṭ, Dharma-mahārāja and Hārītīputra. The Vākāṭakās are commonly understood as a Brāhmaṇa dynasty as were the Śātavāhanas whose successor they were in the upper Deccan. The Ćūtus who succeeded the Śātavāhanas at Banavāsi have atleast one king whose inscription at Malavaḷḷi fashions him as Hārītīputra Vishṇukaḍa Ćūtukulānanda Śātakarṇi. Another Hārītīputra Vyjayantīpati Śivaskandavarman appears to have ruled the same place prior to the Ćūtus.

It is also likely that Harita is the gotra of the matriarch in question wherefrom the given name Hārīti came. We do see this in the case of the Vākāṭakā queen Prabhāvatī Guptā who preferred to use the gōtra of her illustrious Guptā lineage instead of the lineage she married into. In any case, various Hārītīputras seem to share familial bonds that are closer than what their respective gōtras suggest.

With so much information about Calukyas being available in public domain for decades now, one expects a young researcher to be better informed and not get influenced into weaving Bollywood-esque portrayal of our ancestors who lived and died for dharma.