Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c10.s1: Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭa Branch

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c10.s1

Language
English

Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭa Branch

c10.s1.1

Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭa branch founded by Indra was, roughly speaking, contemporary with the life of Amoghavarṣa I. It would be convenient to discuss its history from the beginning to the end at this place, as it is essential to do so to understand the career of Amoghavarṣa properly.

c10.s1.2

Sometime after his accession Govinda III put his younger brother Indra in charge of southern Gujrat, probably in c. 800 A.D. He was thoroughly loyal to his elder brother, (22) protected the province assiduously and cooperated with his feudal lord in defeating Nāgabhaṭa II. Soon thereafter he died, for we find that his eldest son Karka Suvarṇavarṣa was ruling the Gujrat kingdom in 812 A.D. (23) From the Torkhede plates issued in December of the next year, we find that Karka's younger brother was then occupying some important administrative post, having the power of creating sub-feudatories. (24)

c10.s1.3

Karka's valuable services to the imperial house, when he managed to restore Amoghavarṣa to the throne, have been already described. Karka was probably acting as regent for the boy-emperor in his minority throughout, and may therefore have spent most of his time at Malkhed. It is usually supposed that his younger brother Govinda, who had issued the Kavi plates (25) in 827 A.D., was a usurper,

c10.s1.4

22. The lines भीतासंहतदक्षिणपथमहासामन्तचक्रं यतः। रक्षामाप विलुण्ठ्यमानविभवं श्रीवल्लभेनादरात्॥ in the Baroda plates of Karka refer to Indra's successful intervention with Govinda III in favour of southern feudatories, who had joined Stambha, and not to any hostile action against his imperial overlord.

c10.s1.5

²³ Baroda plates, I. A., XII, pp. 157 ff.

c10.s1.6

²⁴ E. I., III, pp. 53 ff.

c10.s1.7

but this view ignores the most significant fact that Govinda in these plates devotes as many as full four verses to the praise of the administration of his brother Karka, and two of these, which contain a very genuine and heart-felt tribute, do not occur in any grant either of Karka himself or of any of his descendants. Is it likely that a usurper or rebel would go out of his way to describe in glowing terms the administration of the victim of his usurpation?²⁶ It appears to me that all the known facts can be explained by the assumption that Govinda of the Kavi plates was simply Karka's deputy, acting on his behalf during his stay at Mālkhed, while engaged in acting as Amoghavarsha's regent. Kavi plates do not refer to Govinda's accession at all. It is true that they refer to Karka as "Sūnurbabhūva Khalu tasya mahānubhāvaḥ," but the verb babhūva need not denote that Karka was dead; for the Torkhede grant of Govinda III²⁷ uses precisely the same line for Karka, although there can be no doubt that Karka was living when that grant was issued in 813 A.D. Dhruva, who succeeded Karka in c. 830, was not his eldest son;²⁸ he was probably an inexperienced youth during his father's absence in the south, whereas Govinda was already a responsible officer in 830 A.D. Karka, therefore, may have naturally selected him to act on his behalf during his absence. At the time of the Kavi plates, he was still merely the regent, since he does not refer there to his accession. The later records of Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭas omit him from the genealogy, not because he was a usurper, but because he was never a de jure ruler. The supposition that he was a rebel against Amoghavarsha received some support from the fact that his Kavi plates take the genealogy of the main line down to Govinda III, and omit Amoghavarsha altogether. But this omission was accidental; for if Govinda was a rebel against Amoghavarsha he must have been an enemy of Karka as well; for the latter was championing the cause of the former. In that case Govinda would not have praised his brother against whom he was fighting. Nor would a favourite of his have been selected by Karka's son, Dhurva I, as the recipient of a land grant.²⁹

c10.s1.8

²⁶ Cf.:— सौराज्यजल्ये चलिते प्रसंगात्निदर्शनम् विश्वजनीनसंपत् । प्राज्यं बलेः पूर्वमहो बभूव क्षिताविदानीं तु नृपस्य यस्य ॥ I. A., V, p. 145 ff.

c10.s1.9

²⁷ E. I., III, p, 53.

c10.s1.10

²⁸ Baroda grant of Karka refers to another son, Dantivarman, who was the Dūtaka of that grant. He must have been then a grown up youth. Since Dhruva succeeded his father, Dantivarman may have probably predeceased him.

c10.s1.11

²⁹ See Baroda grant of Dhruva II, I. A., XIV, p. 197.

c10.s1.12

Karka Suvarnavarsha was succeeded by his son Dhruva I alias Dhārāvarsha in c. 830 A.D.; we have a land grant of his, issued in 835 A.D., wherein he recognises Amoghavarsha as his feudal lord.³⁰ But very soon thereafter, the Gujrat branch was entangled in a long war with a king called Vallabha, which lasted for three generations. Dhruva I lost his life on the battle-field while repelling the forces of his enemy, his followers joined the enemy and his son Akāla-varsha S'ubhatunga too had to regain his ancestral dominions from the enemy, viz. king Vallabha. His victory over his enemy, however, was not a decisive one, for his son Dhruva II had to continue the fight. He had to face a powerful Gurjara army on one side and the forces of Vallabha on the other And his relatives had grown disloyal and an unnamed younger brother of his was conspiring against him.³¹ He was able to tide over this situation with the assistance of his brother Govinda. We find him firm upon the throne in 867 A.D., when he had emerged victorious from the crisis.

c10.s1.13

³⁰ See Baroda grant of Dhruva II, I. A., XIV, p. 197.

c10.s1.14

³¹ Begumra plates of Dhruva II, I. A., XII, p. 179.

c10.s1.15

The identity of king Vallabha, the enemy of the Gujrat line, presents some difficulty. The Gurjara-Pratīhāra ruler, Bhoja I, was at this time engaged in subduing Central India, Northern Gujrat, and Kathiawar; and one is tempted to conclude that the long-drawn war of the Gujrat house may have been with him. But the name of the enemy-king is stated to be Vallabha, and Bhoja is not known to have been known by that title. This title, Vallabha, makes it clear, that the opponent of the Gujrat branch was a Rāṣṭrakūṭa ruler. There were several Rāṣṭrakūṭa feudatories under the Malkhed house who had to be subdued by Amoghavarsha before he could regain the throne. Was this king Vallabha who was fighting with the Gujrat house for about twenty-five years (c. 838–c. 863) a Rāṣṭrakūṭa feudatory of Amoghavarsha, or was he Amoghavarsha himself?

c10.s1.16

Pathari pillar inscription of king Parabala³² discloses the existence of a Rāṣṭrakūṭa family in Malva during the first half of the ninth century. This inscription, which is dated 861 A.D., informs us that an unnamed elder brother of Jejja, the grand-father of Parabala, had conquered Lāṭa country, after defeating the Karṇāṭaka army, and that his father Karkarāja had inflicted a crushing defeat upon a king called Nāgāvaloka. It cannot, however, be maintained that Dhruva I, his son and grandson were engaged in fighting with a king or kings of this Rāṣṭrakūṭa branch. It is no doubt true that Jejja's elder brother is represented as the conqueror of Lāṭa, when Dhruva and his successors were ruling; but Akālavarsha Śubhatuṅga had lost his thrown in his war with Vallabha in c. 840 A.D., while Jejja's elder brother must have flourished much earlier, as his grandson was ruling in 861 A.D. It is possible to argue that Jejja's elder brother conquered Lāṭa in c. 840 A.D. from Akālavarsha Śubhatuṅga and was succeeded not by Jejja but by his son Karkarāja, and that the king Nāgāvaloka defeated by the latter may have been Akālavarsha or his son Dhruva of the Gujrat line with an *avaloka*-ending epithet. This argument, besides being based upon an unproved assumption that Nāgāvaloka was an epithet of Akālavarsha or Dhruva II, ignores the fact that the Pathari pillar record nowhere states that Nāgāvaloka was a ruler of Lāṭa or Gujrat. The fact, that even the name of Jejja's elder brother, who had conquered Lāṭa, is not mentioned in Parabala's record, suggests that Parabala and his father Karka had nothing to do with Lāṭa, and, therefore, could not have been the enemies of the Gujrat Rāshṭrakūṭas. (33)

c10.s1.17

³² E. I., IX, p. 248.

c10.s1.18

33. The identity of the elder brother of Jejja, who had conquered Lāṭa, and of king Nāgāvaloka who was defeated by his nephew, Karka, is still a matter of uncertainty. The *avaloka*-ending epithets were peculiarly associated with the Rāshṭrakūṭas; Dantidurga was Khadgāvaloka, Govinda II was Vikramāvaloka, a relative of his, Vijayāditya, at whose request he had issued the Alas plates, was Mānavāloka, Stambha was Raṇāvaloka, Nanna and his grandson Tuṅga of the Bodhagaya record were Guṇāvaloka and Dharmāvaloka respectively. It is possible to argue, especially since we know from the Konnur record that Amoghavarsha had to face several rebellions of his feudatories, that Nāgāvaloka, the opponent of Karka, was Amoghavarsha himself. But Nāgāvaloka as an epithet of Amoghavarsha is not known from any record, and the Pathari inscription does not give the least hint that the war with Nāgāvaloka was a war with the Mālkhed Rāshṭrakūṭas. Under the present circumstances, Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar's theory that Jejja was a younger brother of Govinda III and Indra and his son Karka had cooperated with him in defeating Nāgāvaloka or Nāgabhaṭa II of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra dynasty seems to be the most probable one (I. A., XL, pp. 239-40). Karka's reign may be placed between c. 810 and c. 840 A.D. and that of Parabala between c. 840 and c. 865 A.D. Nāgāvaloka's identity with Nāgabhaṭa II is rendered all but certain by a statement in *Prabhāvakacharit*, according to which, Nāgāvaloka, the grand-father of Bhoja I, died in c. 834 A.D. The date of the death of Bhoja's grandfather seems to be wrong since Bhoja himself is now known to have ascended the throne earlier than 836 A.D. (Ahar plates of Bhoja, E. I., XIX, pp. 18 ff.). But *Prabhāvakacharit* may be right in stating that Nāgabhaṭa was also known as Nāgāvaloka. It is very likely that Karka may have been appointed by his uncle Govinda III to rule over Mālva after its conquest and annexation.

c10.s1.19

The Vallabha opponent of the Gujrat branch was an obviously powerful ruler and he could not have been a mere feudatory. We have, therefore, to identify him with Amoghavarsha I himself³⁴. Pṛthvīvallabha³⁵ and Lakshmīvallabha³⁶ are known to have been his epithets, and these may have contracted into simple vallabha. The Begumra record of Dhurva II³⁷ and Gujrat plates³⁸ of Dantivarman further make it quite clear that Dhruva I, Akālavarsha, and Dhruva II were fighting against one and the same enemy, a fact which supports the identity of Vallabha with Amoghavarsha, since he was a contemporary of all these kings. From the Konnur record³⁹ we further know that Amoghavarsha was twice deserted by his feudatories in the latter half of his reign and could not retain his hold upon the throne without the help of his zealous general Baṅkeya. It would, therefore, appear that the friendly relations between Amoghavarsha and his Gujrat cousins came to an end soon after 835 A.D.; either Amoghavarsha was ungrateful or Dhruva I became too overbearing, puffed up by the consciousness that it was his father who had restored Amoghavarsha to the throne.⁴⁰

c10.s1.20

³⁴ 35. Kanheri inscription, I. A., XIII, p. 133.

c10.s1.21

³⁵ 36. Nilgund inscription, E. I., VI, p. 99.

c10.s1.22

³⁶ 37. I. A., XII, p. 179.

c10.s1.23

³⁷ 38. E. I., VI, p. 287.

c10.s1.24

³⁸ 39. E. I., VI, p. 29.

c10.s1.25

³⁹ 40. It is not likely that the rebellion of the Gujrat house was instigated by the Gurajara Pratīhāras, for in one place, we are definitely informed that the Gujrat house had to face King Vallabha on the one hand and the Gurjara ruler on the other. (Begumra grant, I.A., XII, p, 179)

c10.s1.26

34. Bhagwanlal Indraji had seen in the following verse of the Kapadwanj grant of Kṛṣṇa II (E. I., I, page 54) an evidence of Amoghavarsha's invasion and devastation of the coastal tract between Bombay and Cambay in his war with the Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭas (B.G., I, i, p. 126):

c10.s1.27

सूनुस्तस्यातिवीरः ... ... ...
भूपालात्कण्ठिकाभि (?) सपदि विघटितान् वेष्टयित्वा ददाह ॥
राज्यं यश्चाभिमानी निजमपचलितं बाहुवीर्यादवाप ।

c10.s1.28

But the third line shows that 1, 2 refers to the trouble at the beg of the reign and therefore "Kaṇṭhikābhi" must be regarded as a mis... for "Kaṇṭakābhān."

c10.s1.29

A war broke out in which Amoghavarsha was first successful. Akālavarsha, however, managed to regain the throne after defeating the imperial forces. Amoghavarsha then recalled Bankeya, who had been sent to reconquer Gangavadi, and with his assistance he was once more able to harass Akālavarsha and Dhruva II. It would seem that ultimately sometime is c. 860 A.D., a peace was concluded, probably because Bhoja I had threatend an invasion. Dhruva II may have consented to recognise Amoghavarsha's sovereignty and Amoghavarsha may have helped him in frustrating Bhoja's plans. Bhoja's invasion was not apparently a serious one, and Dhruva claims to have repulsed it single-handed sometime before 867 A.D.⁴¹ This seems to be the only occasion when Bhoja I and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas came into conflict with each other. Neither side seems to have been anxious to renew the old historic wars between the two houses.

c10.s1.30

⁴¹ Cf: गुर्जरबलमतिबलवत् समुद्यतं बृंहितं च कुल्येन । एकाकिनैव विहितं पराङ्मुखं लीलया येन ॥ Begumra plates, I. A., XII, p. 154.

c10.s1.31

It would be convenient to discuss the remaining history of the Gujrat branch at this stage though it continued to rule down to the reign of Amoghavarsha's successor. Dhruva II had three brothers, one of whom had joined his enemy. Of the remaining two, Govinda had rendered him valuable assistance in his wars with Amoghavarsha, and Dantivarman was ruling under him as a local governor in 867 A.D. This latter succeeded him some time after 867 A.D., and in 888 A.D. Gurjara Dantivarman's son Kṛṣṇarāja Akālavarsha upon the throne. This Kṛṣṇarāja participated in his feudal lord's wars with the Gurjara Pratihāras and claims to have defeated the enemy at Ujjain.⁴²

c10.s1.32

⁴² I. A., XIII, p. 67.

c10.s1.33

Soon after 888 A.D., the Gujrat branch came to an end. The reasons for its disappearance are not yet known. On the one hand, we do not know of any successor of Kṛṣṇarāja and on the other, we find that Kṛṣṇa II and Indra III were directly administering Southern Gujarat.

c10.s1.34

The territories over which the Gujrat branch ruled were bounded on the north by the Mahi. The Baroda grant of Karka grants Baroda itself, his Naosari plates were issued from Kaira; Baroda plates of his successor Dhruva I were issued from Sarvamangala near Kaira; all these show that the Mahi was the northern boundary.⁴³ The territory beyond was being governed by the feudatories of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire. The southern boundary seems to have varied; according to an unpublished Baroda grant of Dhruva II, dated 867 A.D., his dominion stretched from the Mahi to the Narmada only.⁴⁴ But a copper plate of this very monarch issued four years earlier grants a village near Naosari,⁴⁵ showing that his jurisdiction had then extended upto the Tapi. The strip of the territory between the Narmada and the Tapi seems to have been transferred between these two dates to the Śilāhāras of Konkan by Amoghavarsha I. The Surat plates of Karka, which I am editing at present, grant a piece of land in Ambāpāṭaka, a village near Naosari, showing that in his time the Tapi was the southern boundary. It is very likely that Amoghavarsha may have granted the territory between the Narmada and the Tapi as a reward for the loyal services of Karka, which the Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭas continued to hold till c. 862 A.D. It was probably taken away from them at the end of the long feud with Amoghavarsha I. Eastwards their authority could not have extended beyond the longitude 75, for the Ujjain kingdom was not permanently included in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire.

c10.s1.35

⁴³ Fleet suggests the possibility of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa rule having extended for some time right upto Sindh after the fall of Valabhi, since two Arab writers, Ibn Haukal and Al Istakhri state that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kingdom extended from Kambaya to Saimur. This view, however, is untenable, for Kambaya and Saimur are not on the confines of Sindh; The first is Cambay at the mouth of the Mahi and the second is Chaul, 30 miles to the south of Bombay. It is not improbable that some portion of the territory near the mouth of the Mahi may have been lost to Balavarman or his feudal lord Bhoja I soon after 867 A.D. See Una inscription of Balavarman, E. I., IX, p. 1.

c10.s1.36

⁴⁴ Referred to by Bhagwanlal Indraji in B. G., I., i. p. 127.

c10.s1.37

⁴⁵ Begumra plates, I. A., XII, p. 179.

c10.s1.38

Let us now revert to the career of Amoghavarsha. His latest known date is Phālguna Śuddha 10, Saka 799 (i. e. March, 878 A.D.) when the Jayadhavala-ṭīkā of Vīrasena was finished. He had at this time completed the usual allotted span of human life and ruled for about 64 years.⁴⁶ His death, therefore, may well be presumed to have taken place not long after this date. We may place that event in c. 880 A.D.

c10.s1.39

⁴⁶ R. G. Bhandarkar had suspected that there might be something wrong about the dates of Amoghavarsha on the ground that it was very improbable that a king should have ruled for so long a period (*Early History of the Deccan*, supplement p. 2). But the Sanjan plates hav now shown that Amoghavarsha was a child of six at his accession; he could, therefore, have ruled for 64 years.

c10.s1.40

Kṛṣṇa II, who succeeded him, is the only known son of Amoghavarsha. Chandrobelabbā, who was married to the Ganga Crown Prince Bhūtuga, is the only daughter of the emperor.⁴⁷

c10.s1.41

⁴⁷ E. C., XII, Nanjangad No. 129.

c10.s1.42

Amoghavarsha's reign was long, but it was not brilliant from the military point of view. During his rule Gangavāḍi and Malva were lost to the empire. The defeat of the Vengi ruler Guṇaga Vijayāditya was the only substantial military achievement. Amoghavarsha did not, like his father and grandfather, intervene in the politics of northern India, although there were provocations enough for such an intervention. The frequent internal revolts that broke during his reign left him no time to undertake an expedition in the north. He does not, besides, seem to have been a military leader or a lover of war, like his father and grand-father. It was rather peace, literature and religion that attracted him. He was either the author or the inspirer of *Kavirājamārga*, the earliest work in Canarese on poetics. He was a patron of literature; Nāgavarman II (c. 1150 A.D.), Keśirāja (c. 1225 A.D.) and Bhaṭṭakaḷaṅka (c. 1600 A.D.) all agree in stating that Amoghavarsha was very liberal to men of letters.⁽⁴⁸⁾ His Sanjan plates also aver that he was more liberal than the famous Vikramāditya himself.⁽⁴⁹⁾ In religion Amoghavarsha had great leaning towards Jainism. Jinasena, the author of *Ādipurāṇa*, claims that he was the chief preceptor of Amoghavarsha.⁽⁵⁰⁾ *Gaṇitasārasaṃgraha*, a Jain mathematical work by Mahāvīrācārya, written in the reign of Amoghavarsha, describes him as a follower of *Syādyāda*. Though there can be thus no doubt that Amoghavarsha was immensely impressed by the gospel of Mahāvīra, he had not altogether ceased to believe in the tenets and beliefs of Hinduism. He was a devotee of Mahālakṣmī and the Sanjan record states that he had on one occasion cut off and offered one of the fingers of his left hand to that Goddess, in order to ward off a public calamity. That this is not a cock-and-bull story is proved by the unexpected confirmation of the Sanjan record by the *Karṇāṭakas'abdānuśāsanam* of Bhaṭṭakaḷaṅka, where we are told that Nṛpatuṅga excelled Bali twice, Dadhīchi three times, and Jīmūtavāhana a hundred times and Sibi certainly a thousand times.⁽⁵¹⁾ These comparisons remind us of the wording of v. 47 of the Sanjan plates, where also the sacrifice of his finger by Amoghavarsha is compared to the sacrifice of Jīmūtavāhana, S'ibi and Dadhīchi, and shown to be immensely superior to theirs.

c10.s1.43

⁴⁸ I. A. 1904, pp. 197 ff.

c10.s1.44

⁴⁹ Sanjan plates vv. 47-48.

c10.s1.45

⁵⁰ B. G. I., ii. p.

c10.s1.46

⁵¹ I. A., 1904, pp. 197 ff.

c10.s1.47

Amoghavarsha thus not only listened to the precepts of religion, but also practised them. The concluding verse of Pras'nottaramālikā was first to inform us that its author, Amoghavarsha, had abdicated, convinced of the futility of life. This statement was not believed by all, for the authorship of this poem was ascribed in some quarters to Saṅkarāchārya and in others to Vimala. The Sanjan record affords conclusive evidence that Amoghavarsha had abdicated. v. 47 informs us that he had given up the kingdom more than once. It would seem that he was often putting his Yuvarāja or the ministry in charge of the administration, in order to pass some days in retirement and contemplation in the company of his Jain gurus. This again shows the pious monarch trying to put into practice the teachings both of Hinduism and Jainism, which require a pious person to retire from life at the advent of old age in order to realise the highest ideals of human life.

c10.s1.48

²⁰⁰ Amoghavarsha referred to by these writers could not have been Amoghavarsha II or III since Ādipurāṇa was completed in the reign of Krishna II.

c10.s1.49

We can now understand the discrepancy between the Saundatti record of Pṛthvīrāma⁵² according to which Kṛṣṇa II was ruling in 875 A.D., and the Kanheri record⁵³, according to which Amoghavarsha I was on the throne in 877 A.D. Even before 861 A.D., when the Sanjan plates were issued, Amoghavarsha had abdicated more than once; during the concluding years of his reign, his retirements from the administrative duties must have been more frequent and prolonged. He may have been at that time only a theoretical sovereign, his son Kṛṣṇa being the de facto ruler for all practical purposes. It was, therefore, natural that in the documents issued in this period, there should be some confusion as to the name of the ruling king; some would mention the name of the de jure ruler, and some of the de facto one.

c10.s1.50

⁵² J. B. B. R. A. S., X, p. 200. It may also be added that the date of this record is not quite above suspicion. Pṛthvīrāma's grandson was ruling in December 980 A.D. (Ibid, pp. 211 ff.) ; it is, therefore, not very likely that his grandfather could have been upon the throne in 875 A.D. To get over this difficulty Fleet has suggested (B. G., I., ii, p. 211, note 1) that Pṛthvīrāma's overlord may be taken to be Kṛṣṇa III and not Kṛṣṇa II. The date of the record goes, however, against this view.

c10.s1.51

⁵³ I. A., XIII, p. 135.

Linked texts (7)