The Rashtrakutas and their Times c10.s1.7

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