Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c11: Chapter V. Krishna II to Govinda IV

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Krishna II to Govinda IV

c11.1

Krishna II

c11.2

Unlike most of his predecessors, Kṛṣṇa II could ascend and retain the throne without a war of succession. The exact date of his accession is still not possible to determine, but it cannot be much later than March 878 A.D., which is the last known date of his father, since the latter was by that time more than 70. We may, therefore, tentatively place his accession in c. 880 A.D.¹

c11.3

¹ The earliest known date of Kṛṣṇa II is 888 A.D. supplied by the Bettigiri inscription. (E. I., XIII, p. 189) An inscription from Kunimellihalli in Dharwar district, dated 896 A.D., refers itself to the reign of Mahāsāmantādhipati Kannarvallabha. It is quite certain that Kṛṣṇa was not a Yuvarāja at this time. The feudatory title applied to him in this record must be either an accidental mistake, or Kannaradeva of the record was different from Kṛṣṇa II. The later alternative is improbable, as Dharwar was at this time under direct imperial administration, the local governor being Lokāditya, the son of Bankeya, the famous general of Amoghavarsha.

c11.4

Kṛṣṇa II had to engage in wars with most of his neighbours. On the south, he had to fight with the Gangas and the Nolambas, on the east with the Vengi Chālukyas, and on the north with the Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭas and Gurjara-Pratīhāras. He was the son-in-law of Kokkala, the Chedi ruler,² and his son Jagaṭṭuṅga was married to Lakshmī, a daughter of his wife's brother Saṅkargaṇa alias Raṇavigraha. He derived considerable help from these Chedi relatives in times of need. The statement in the Bilahari inscription³ of Yuvarāja II that Kokkala had conquered the whole earth planting Bhojarāja and Kṛṣṇarāja as his columns of fame in the north and south respectively, is not to be interpreted and understood too literally to mean that Kokkala had defeated his son-in-law Kṛṣṇa II. It simply means that he had rendered assistance to him, an interpretation, which is supported by the Benares plates of Karṇadeva, (4) which simply say that Kokkala had extended protection to Kṛṣṇa and Bhoja. Kokkala's conquests are nowhere described, and it is not unlikely that he may have derived his importance from his family connections with the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and possibly with the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.

c11.5

² Sangli plates of Govinda IV, I. A., XII, pp. 247 ff.

c11.6

³ E. I., I, p. 156.

c11.7

The political relations between the Chālukyas of Vengi and Kṛṣṇa II are very difficult to determine at present. A synthesis of the known facts in this connection presents almost insuperable difficulties. Vijayāditya III (c. 844-c. 888 A.D.) and Bhīma I (c. 888-c. 918 A.D.) were the Chālukya contemporaries of Kṛṣṇa II. We have seen how Amoghavarsha claims to have defeated the Vengi ruler and how the Idar record admits that towards the end of the reign of Vijayāditya III, Vengi Maṇḍala was overrun by the Raṭṭas. The Kaluchamburu grant, however, states how Bhīma I defeated a great army sent by Kṛṣṇavallabha along with some relatives of his own and then protected the earth.(5) It is, thus, clear that Bhīma I succeeded in regaining independence for his house sometime in the reign of Kṛṣṇa II.

c11.8

But the relations of Vijayāditya III with the Rāṣṭrakūṭas after his defeat by the latter are still a great mystery. The Idar plates inform us that Vijayāditya III attacked the Gangas at the instigation of the lord of the Raṭṭas, cut off the head of Maṅgi in battle, frightened Kṛṣṇa and his ally Sankila, and burnt their capital whose name, however, is not stated.(6) The killing of Maṅgi was an undoubted historic fact; it is referred to in several eastern Chalukyan records(7) and the Musulipattan plates of Vijayāditya III himself record a grant to a Brahmana, Vinayādiśarman by name, who had suggested to the grantor the way to kill Maṅgi(8) while the battle was raging. From the Maliyapundi grant we learn that Maṅgi was a Nolamba chief, and that Saṅkila, who had joined with fierce Vallabha was a ruler of Dahāla country.(9) The same grant tells us that the city burnt was Kiraṇapura and that Kṛṣṇa was staying there at that time.(10) The Pithapuram inscription(11) of Mallapadeva, however, states that Vijayāditya burnt Chakrakota, frightened Saṅkila (who was residing at Kiraṇa-

c11.9

⁴ E. I., II, p. 396.

c11.10

⁵ Cf. जित्वा संयति कृष्णवल्लभमहादण्डं सदायादिकम् । भीमो भूपतिरन्वभुंक्त भुवनम् ... ... ... ॥
6. Cf. गंगानां गजवैरिशिरिसमान् रट्टेशचोदितः । जित्वा मंगिशिरोऽहरद् युधि महाबाहासवीर्य्यमा ।

c11.11

कृष्णं संकिलमंकिताखिलबल (?) प्राप्तोरसद्विक्रमः।
भीतार्ते च विधाय तत्पुरवरम् यो निर्ददाह प्रभुः॥

c11.12

The expression ‘रहेशसंचोदितः’ in this verse is translated by Fleet as ‘Challenged by the lord of the Raṭṭas,’ but the root संचुद् does not possess the sense of challenging.

c11.13

7. The Pithapuram inscription describes the incident with a grim humour; Cf.:—

c11.14

मंगिराजोत्तमंगेन यो वीरस्समरांगणे
चकार कन्दुकक्रीडां नाम्ना त्रिभुवनांकुशः॥ E. I., IV, p. 233 v. 9.

c11.15

हत्वा मंगिं विजितसकलाराति भूपालवर्गम्।
रागोद्रेकाध्यसितनृपतित्यागशौर्यप्रतापम्।
नाना हेत्या हतहयभटೋನ್मत्तहस्तिप्रकीर्णे॥
युद्धे यस्य द्विजगणवरस्याद्भुतादेशतुष्टः॥
तस्मै विनयादिशर्मणे चंद्रग्रहणनिमित्तम् ग्रामं दत्तवान्। E. I., V, p. 125.

c11.16

हत्वा भूरि नोदम्बराष्ट्रपतिं मंगिं महासंगरे
गंगानाश्रितगंगकूटशिखरान्निर्जित्य सड्ग्राहलाधीशम्
संकिलमुग्रवल्लभभयुतम् यो भार्ययित्वा विजयादित्यो ररक्ष क्षितम्। Ibid.

c11.17

10. किरणपुरमधाक्षीत् कृष्णराजस्थितम् यः। E. I., IX, p. 51.

c11.18

योधाक्षीचक्रकूटं किरणपुरगतं संकिलं कृष्णयुक्तम्।
योऽभैषीत्, वल्लभभेन्द्रं निजमहियुतं योऽव्यधात्, अग्रहीच्च॥
कालिंगप्राहुतेभान्,...। E. I., IV, p. 239.

c11.19

pura and was helped by Kṛṣṇa), acquainted(12) (lit, united) Vallabhendra with his bravery (i. e. by defeating him ), and accepted elephants from the Kalinga ruler. And finally we learn from the Kalachumbaru grant that Vijayāditya III was worshipped by king Vallabha who could be obviously none other than Kṛṣṇa II.

c11.20

The above-mentioned exploits of Vijayāditya divide themselves into two parts : those performed in the south and those in the north. We have already seen how Vijayāditya was signally defeated by Amoghavarsha I. It seems that after this defeat either Amoghavarsha or Kṛṣṇa II suggested to the defeated ruler the idea of attacking the Gangas and their feudatories, the Nolambas, offering free passage to the Vengi army and probably some help also in men and money.(13)

c11.21

12. ‘निजमहिमयुतं योऽव्यधात्’ can mean ‘who restored (Kṛṣṇa) to his dignity’ as well. It will be shown below that the known situation requires a sense similar to the one suggested in the text. The root ‘yu’ means to unite as well as to separate; the translation, ‘who separated Krishna from his glory’ would be better still.

c11.22

¹³ Cf. the expression ‘रट्टैश्चोदितः’ in the passage quoted in the foot-note No. 6 above. This lord of the Raṭṭas who incited the Vengi ruler could not have been Prithvirāma, the Raṭṭa feudatory of Kṛṣṇa II; besides being a petty ruler, he was not an immediate neighbour either of Vijayāditya or of the Gangas to make his incitement to the former to attack the latter probable. I freely admit that the theory advanced in the text above that Vijayāditya attacked the Gangas at the instigation of his enemy Amoghavarsha or Krishna II looks a little unconvincing. In politics, however, the enemies of today become friends of tomorrow; the conduct of Greece and Italy in the last world war is a pertinent example. It is possible to argue that the Raṭṭa chief, who incited Vijayāditya, may have been a hitherto unknown feudatory Rāṣṭrakūṭa ruler, whose advice the Vengi ruler may have followed without any suspicion. The term Raṭṭas, however, can hardly be appropriate with reference to a mere feudatory and can properly denote only the Rāṣṭrakūṭa emperor ruling at the time. Fleet's view that Vijayāditya was challenged by the Rattas to attack the Gangas is also unconvincing, for ‘sanchodita’ cannot mean ‘challenged by.’ The theory propounded above in the text is therefore the only one that explains the facts known so far.

c11.23

The suggestion was a diplomatic one, for whosoever may succeed in the campaign, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were bound to be benefitted as both the Gangas and the Vengis were their enemies; and the defeat or stalemate would weaken either or both of them. At this time (c. 870-880 A.D.), Satyavākya Koṅguṇivarma Būtuga I had just come to the throne or his father Rāchamalla's reign was drawing to a close. It was, therefore, a nice opportunity to attack. The Nolambas of Nolambawadi who were the feudatories of the Gangas, had to bear the brunt of the attack as Nolambawadi lay between Vengi-maṇḍala and the Ganga territory. Vijayāditya defeated Nolamba army killing, probably by some trick, (14) its general Maṅgi, who seems to have been a relative of the ruler of Nolambawadi. He then advanced into Gangawadi and besieged and apparently captured a fort. (15)

c11.24

Emboldened by these successes Vijayāditya and his nephew, Yuvaraja Bhīma, must have tried to throw off the Rāṣṭrakūṭa yoke, especially since Kṛṣṇa II had just ascended the throne. With this end in view Vijayāditya led some daring raids in the north-eastern portions of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire. The passages quoted in foot-notes Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 11 make it clear that Kṛṣṇa and Sankila, who were the opponents of Vijayāditya, could only have been Kṛṣṇa II of Malkhed and his brother-in-law Sankula or Saṅkaragaṇa of the Chedi house. The passage in the foot-note No. 9 stinctly says that Sankila was a ruler of Dahāla and the Sangli plates (16) of Govinda IV inform us that the wife of Kṛṣṇa II was a younger sister of Sankula, a son of Kokkala. Sankila of the passages quoted in foot-notes Nos. 6, 9 & 11, is obviously the same as Sankula of the Sangli plates. This conclusion is further supported by the localities mentioned in connection with this raid. The passage in the foot-note No. 11 refers to the burning of Chakrakūṭa and this is the same as the fort of Chakrakotya in the centre of Bastar state. (17) Kiraṇapura (18) which was subsequently besieged or burnt has not yet been identified, but I think that it is the same as Kiranpur, a small town in Baleghat district of C. P. about 150 miles to the north of Chakrakūṭa or Chakrakottya. By construing together the verses in foot-notes Nos. 6, 10 and 11, it becomes clear that Kiraṇapura was not a capital of Sankila or Kṛṣṇa, but that these rulers were for the time being staying in that city. Kṛṣṇa, the ally of Sankila, can be none other than his brother-in-law Kṛṣṇa II. Jouveau Dubreuil's theory that he may be the Ganga-Pallava Prithvī-Kṛṣṇa cannot be accepted, since both Chakrakūṭa and Kiraṇapura lay far away from the Ganga-Pallava principality. He cannot be Kṛṣṇa of the Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭa branch. The epithet "Ugravallabha" given to Sankila's ally, (19) shows that he was a great ruler and not a petty feudatory. Besides, Sankila

c11.25

¹⁴ In the passage quoted in foot-note No. 9 above we find Vijayāditya making a grant to a learned Brahmana on the occasion of an eclipse as a reward for the advice that he had given in the thick of battle which enabled him to kill Maṅgi. Since Vijayāditya could bring about the death of Maṅgi by following the advice of a Brahmana who, to judge from his name and from the fact that he is the donee of a grant made on the occasion of an eclipse, was a non-fighter, it is probable that some trick may have been played to bring about his death.

c11.26

¹⁵ It may be pointed out that about half a century later the Cālukya ruler of the time, Amma I, was also engaged in fighting with a combination of the Gangas and Nolambas. E. I., VI, p. 47.

c11.27

17. Chakrakotya occupied a strategic position and was, in later times, captured by Rājendra Chola. See S. I. I., I, No. 67.

c11.28

18. Fleet had conjectured that Kiraṇapura may be a mistake for Kṛṣṇapura i. e. Malkhed, the capital of Kṛṣṇa. (I. A , XX, p. 102 n. 26). This view has to be abandoned since the reading in the Pithapuram inscription (foot-note No. 11) is now confirmed by the Maliyapundi record (foot-note No. 10). Foot note No. 11 further shows that Kiraṇapura was a city of Sankila and not of Kṛṣṇa. The latter may have been simply staying there for the time being. In view of my identification of this place there is now no scope for conjectures.

c11.29

19. See foot-note No. 11.

c11.30

may have, when in difficulty, invoked the aid of his mighty brother-in-law, whose territories were contiguous to his own, rather than that of a petty feudatory, living hundreds of miles from the battle-field. Nor can Sankila's ally be Kṛṣṇarāja, the founder of the Paramāra dynasty, firstly because he was not a ruling prince in c. 880 A.D., and secondly because he did not bear the epithet of Vallabha. The only Kṛṣṇarāja, then, who flourished in c. 880 A.D., and who could have participated in Sankila's battles near Chakrakūṭa and Kiraṇapura, is the Rāṣṭrakūṭa emperor Kṛṣṇa II, who was Sankila's brother-in-law. The verse in the foot-note No. 11 does not go against this identification; for Vallabhendra in clause (c) of that verse need not be taken as different from Kṛṣṇa in clause (b); the verse is to be translated as follows:—"Who (Vijayāditya III) burnt Chakrakūṭa, frightened Sankila staying in Kiraṇapura and joined by Kṛṣṇa, acquainted (lit. united) Vallabhendra (i. e. Kṛṣṇa II) with his (i. e. Vajayāditya's) own prowess (by defeating him), and took away the elephants from the Kalinga ruler."

c11.31

Kṛṣṇa was not able to retrieve the situation after Vijayāditya's death. His successor Bhīma I claims to have defeated Kṛṣṇa and his Lāṭa and Karṇātaka allies in the battles of Niravadyapura and Peruvanguragrāma.²⁰ Bhīma had to pay rather heavily for his successes; for his eldest son, a lad of 16, was killed while fighting in this war. It may, however, be observed that Kṛṣṇa's authority remained supreme right up to Chitaldurg during the dark days of his Vengi and Gujrat wars; an inscription from Kadajji in Chitaldurg District, dated 889 A.D., refers to Kannaradeva's kingdom as extending on all sides.²¹

c11.32

²⁰ Inscriptions from Madras Presidency, Kistna Dt. No. 9.

c11.33

²¹ E. C., XI, Davanagare No. 17.

c11.34

Soon after his accession and some time before 888 A.D., Kṛṣṇa II came into hostile contact with Bhoja I. The scene of war was Malva; a fragmentry Pratihāra inscription from Bhavānagar Museum, recently published, (22) refers to the Narmada in connection with Bhoja's attack on a king called Kṛṣṇarāja, who must be obviously Kṛṣṇa II; and the Begumra plates of Kṛṣṇa of the Gujrat branch, dated 888 A.D., (23) tell us how the grantor feudatory defeated the enemy at Ujjayinī, while king Vallabha was watching the army movements. Begumra plates of Indra III (24) inform us that old men vividly remembered in 914 A.D. (when the plates were issued) the brave feats of the late Rāṣṭrakūṭa emperor in the sanguinary wars with the Gurjaras. The crown prince Jagattunga also participated in these wars as also the Chedi ruler. (25) These wars seem to have profited neither party; they may have been of the nature of the frontier affrays. From Al Masudi, we learn that the Gurjara-Pratihāras used to maintain a strong force in the south to keep the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in check; (26) frontier clashes were therefore inevitable, and victory must have remained some time on one side and some time on the other. Kṛṣṇa was too weak to think of emulating the example of Dhruva I or Govinda III, and Bhoja was too old to undertake a serious expedition against his southern neighbour. (27)

c11.35

22. E. I., XIX., pp. 174-7. 23. I. A., XIII, p. 66.
24. E. I., IX, p. 24. 25. I. A., XII, p. 265.
26. Elliot: History of India, Vol. I, p. 22.
27. In his historical appendix to Uttarapurāṇa, which was completed in S'aka 820 i.e. 908-9 A.D., the elephants of Kṛṣṇa are represented by Guṇachandra to have drunk the waters of the Ganges and enjoyed the cool shade in the forests at Cape Kamorin. cf:—

c11.36

यस्योत्तंगमतंगजा निजमदस्रोतस्विनीसंगमात् ।
गांगं वारि कलंकितं पहु मुहुः पीत्वाप्यगच्छत्क्षपाम् ॥
कौमारं घनचंदनं...अस्तभास्करच्छायं...समाशि श्रियन् ॥

c11.37

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Ms. No. 1191 of 1886-91, folio 360.

c11.38

This is conventional praise; we know that Kṛṣṇa's rule did not extend beyond Banavāsi 12,000 and so his army could not have reached Cape Kamorin. Similarly his soldiers could not have entered the waters of the Ganges as the Gurjara Pratihāra rule was firmly established in the Ganges vally.

c11.39

It was some time in the last decade of the 9th century, that the career of the Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭa branch came to an end. 888 A.D. is the latest date, so far known, for its last ruler Kṛṣṇa, when he was fighting at Ujjayinī under his feudal lord Kṛṣṇa II. But soon thereafter the two rulers became enemies and a war ensued. Sangli²⁸ and Cambay²⁹ plates of Govinda IV refer to the evacuation of Kheṭaka by the enemies of Kṛṣṇa II; this must refer to the expulsion of the Gujrat ruler Kṛṣṇa or his successor from Kaira.³⁰ We come across no inscriptions of the Gujrat branch after 888 A.D.; the Kapadwanj grant of Kṛṣṇa II, dated 910 A.D.,³¹ reveals the existence of a new feudatory Pracaṇḍa of Brahmāvaloka house. To judge from the names of its members, this seems to have been a Canarese family, ruling under direct imperial supervision over the Kapadwanj Kaira area, which was formerly being governed by the Gujrat Rāṣṭrakūṭas. In the time also of the next ruler Indra III we find Gujrat being directly controlled from Malkhed. In his Begumra plates of 914 A.D. Indra regrants a village named Treṇṇā, which had been formerly bestowed upon the donee's ancestors both by Dhruva I and Dhruva II of the Gujrat branch. The donee's descendant was anxious for a regrant of the village, obviously because the grantor's family was no longer in power in southern Gujrat. We may, therefore, conclude that the Gujrat branch came to an end in c. 900 A.D.

c11.40

²⁸ I. A., Vol. XII, pp. 247.

c11.41

²⁹ E. I., VII, p. 29.

c11.42

³⁰ The view that Kheṭaka in this passage is the same as Malkhed is hardly tenable. Mānyakheṭa is nowhere known to have been referred to as Kheṭaka; whereas the ancient name of Kaira was Kheṭaka. Besides Mānyakheṭa is not known to have been occupied by any enemies at this time.

c11.43

³¹ E. I., I, p. 52.

c11.44

Kṛṣṇa II was not an able and gifted ruler like his grand-father. His only military achievement was the defeat and destruction of the Gujrat branch, which certainly was not a very great exploit, considering how petty that kingdom was. He could just maintain his own against Bhoja I and Mahendrapāla, and he was worsted by Chālukya Bhīma of Vengi. Gangavadi, which had seceded from the Rāshṭrakūṭa empire during the weak rule of his father, could not be reconquered by him. (32) He was just able to maintain a status quo and that too with the assistance of his father-in-law and brother-in-law. Like his father he was a Jain; Guṇabhadra, the famous Jain author of the last five chapters of Ādipurāṇa was his preceptor. (33) There is no sufficient evidence to investigate into the question as to how far the adhesion to Jainism of Amoghavarsha I and his son Kṛshṇa II was responsible for the military and political decline of the Rāshṭrakūṭa empire during their rule. It may, however, be pointed out that a number of fervent followers of Jainism like Baṅkeya, Chālukya Nārasimha, Srīvijaya, and Noḷambāntaka Nārasimha were very able and fiery military leaders. [See also, supra, Chapter XIII, section C, in this connection.]

Indra III

c11.s1.1

Kṛshṇa II was succeeded by his grandson Indra III. His son Jagattuṅga had predeceased him; both the Karhad (34) and Deoli (35) plates of Kṛshṇa III inform us that Jagattuṅga was taken to heaven by the Creator before his accession to the throne, as if at the pressing request of the heavenly damsels. Nausari plates (36) of Indra III describe him as meditating on the feet of Akālavarsha, showing that Indra III was the successor of Kṛshṇa II, and not of his own father Jagattuṅga. The latest known date of Kṛshṇa II is 912 A.D.; (37) but the aged emperor lived for two years more. He died towards the close of 914 A.D.; for we know from the Nausari plates of Indra III that he had gone to Kurundhaka (38) from his capital Mānyakheṭa on the 7th day of the bright half of Phālguna, S'aka 836 (24-2-915 A.D.) for the purpose of Paṭṭabandhotsava or coronation ceremony. Since on this occasion Indra granted afresh four hundred villages resumed by previous rulers, it must obviously have been the time of his formal coronation. His accession, which was a peaceful one, could not therefore have taken place much earlier.

c11.s1.2

³² Mysore Inscriptions, No. 113, p. 29.

c11.s1.3

³³ J. B. B. R. A. S., XXII, p. 85.

c11.s1.4

³⁴ E. I., IV, p. 278.

c11.s1.5

³⁵ E. I., V, p. 190.

c11.s1.6

³⁶ J. B. B. R. A. S., XVIII, pp. 253 ff.

c11.s1.7

Indra was probably a man of 35 at the time of his accession and he ruled for about five years only. His career, if short, was a brilliant one. Before his formal coronation in February 915, he had sacked Meru and conquered a king named Upendra who had annexed or relieved Govardhana. (39) The historical information conveyed by the second quarter of this verse is still a mystery. Kielhorn thinks that Meru may be Kanauj. (40) Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar suggests that Upendra may have been another name of Mahīpāla, the Gurjara-Pratīhāra emperor; (41) both these suggestions, besides being based upon pure assumption, ignore the significant fact that the feats, referred to in the verse in question, were performed by Indra before his coronation. It is almost inconceivable that Indra would have carried out his expedition against Kanauj during the short interval between his father's death and his own formal coronation. Upendra, conquered by him, seems to be the Paramāra chief Kṛṣṇarāja, who, according to the Udaipur Praśasti, was also known as Upendrarāja. Vākpati alias Muñja, who was a contemporary of Tailapa, ( c. 980 A.D. ) was Upendra's great grandson. The known dates of Siyaka, grandson of Upendra, range from 949 to 973 A.D. Upendra's rule, therefore, must have been between c. 900–925 A.D. Paramāras were in the beginning very probably feudatories of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras; at their instigation Upendra seems to have attacked Govardhan in Nasik district at the beginning of Indra's reign. Indra defeated him, compelling the Paramāras to transfer their allegiance to his own house. The Harsola grant attests to the fact that the Paramāras were professing allegiance to the Rāṣṭrakūṭas subsequent to Indra's conquests.⁴²

c11.s1.8

³⁸ R. G. Bhandarkar identifies Kurundhaka with Kaṇḍoda on the Tapti. B. G., I, ii, p.

c11.s1.9

²⁰³ It is equally possible that the place may be Kurundwad in Kolhapur state.

c11.s1.10

³⁹ कृतगोवर्धनोद्धारं हेलोन्यूलितमेरुणा । उपेन्द्रमिन्द्रराजेन जित्वा येन न विस्मितम् । J. B. B. R. A. S., XVIII, p. 253.

c11.s1.11

⁴⁰ E. I., VII, Appendix p. 16 n. 2.

c11.s1.12

⁴¹ *Ibid*, pp. 38 ff.

c11.s1.13

⁴² Report of the third Oriental Conference, Madras, pp 303–308.

c11.s1.14

The defeat of the Paramāra chief Upendrarāja was only a preparatory step to the contemplated invasion of northern India. After the death of Mahendrapāla in 908 A.D., there were troubles of succession at Kanauj; his son Bhoja II could retain the throne only for about two years. His younger brother Mahīpāla wanted to oust him. The Chedi ruler Kokkala had espoused his cause⁴³ and was for a time successful; but Mahīpāla soon managed to get the throne, probably with the assistance of some feudatories. The dissensions in the Imperial family must have divided the feudatories also into two camps, rendering the task of an outside invader the reverse of difficult. The time of the invasion of Indra III was thus very opportune; he had not to break any formidable confederacy as Govinda III had to do, when he attacked Nāgabhaṭa, nor had he to cross swords with two powerful claimants for the supremacy in Northern India, as Dhruva and Govinda III had to do. The achievements of Indra III were, however, more dramatic than those of his predecessors.

c11.s1.15

⁴³ Cf. भोजे वल्लभराजे श्रीहर्षे चित्रकूटभूपाले । शंकरगणे च राजनि यस्यासीदभयदः पाणिः॥ E. I., II, pp 306–7.

c11.s1.16

Unfortunately we have no detailed information about this campaign. From the Cambay plates we learn that he first attacked Ujjayinī, (44) then crossed the Jamuna and finally captured Kanauj itself. Mahīpāla, the Gurjara-Pratīhāra emperor, became a fugitive and was pursued by Chālukya Nārasimha, one of the generals of Indra. The poet Pampa, a protege of Nārasimha, informs us that his patron "plucked from Gurjara king's arms the Goddess of victory, whom, though desirous of keeping, he had held too loosely. Mahīpāla fled as if struck by thunderbolt, staying neither to eat nor to rest, nor to pick himself up, while Nārasimha pursuing bathed his horses at the junction of the Ganges and established his fame." (45) Mahīpāla seems to have been pursued upto Allahabad. (46) The testimony of the southern records as to the defeat and flight of Mahīpāla is confirmed by a fragmentary Chandella inscription from Khajuraho, (47) from which we learn

c11.s1.17

44. Cf. यन्माद्यद्विपदन्तघातविषमं कालप्रियप्राङ्गणम् । तीर्णा यत्तुरगैरधयमुना सिन्धुप्रतिस्पर्धिनी ॥ येनेदं हि महोद्यारिनगरं निर्मूलसुन्मीलितम् । नाम्नायापि जनैः कुशस्थलमिति ख्यातिं परां नीयते ॥

c11.s1.18

Agreeing with my predecessors I have assumed in the text that "कालप्रियप्रांगण" in the above verse refers to Ujjayinī. It may be, however, pointed out that Ujjain is not on the way leading from Malkhed to Kanauj; and it is not improbable that the first line refers to Kalpi, where also there still exists a temple of Kālāpriya. Kalpi is situated on the way to Kanauj. If the crossing of the Yamunā referred to in the second line took place immediately after the halt in the courtyard of Kālāpriya, then it will follow that Indra did not pass through Ujjain.

c11.s1.19

45. कर्नाटकभाषाभूषण, introduction, p. XIV.

c11.s1.20

46. The junction of the Ganges referred to in the text above must be with the Jamuna and not with the sea; for there is no evidence to show that Indra III had come into conflict with Rājyapāla. It is, however, likely that Mahīpāla may have fled, not towards Allahabad, for that would have brought him closer to the Chedis, who were Indra's allies, but towards Gorakhpur. Nārasimha may have pursued him for a while, and then proceeded to Allahabad on his way back to the Deccan.

c11.s1.21

that Mahīpāla was reinstated on the throne, probably by Harsha. The northern campaign of Indra thus produced a more dramatic result than was ever achieved by his predecessors Dhruva and Govinda, neither of whom had succeeded in occupying the Imperial capital Kanauj. More tangible and substantial results would probably have followed if Indra's career had not been cut short by his premature death, which must have necessitated the retirement of his army to the south.

c11.s1.22

While Indra was himself engaged in the north, his generals in the south were equally active. A record of one of them, Srīvijaya, has been discovered at Danavulapadu in Cudappah district. Although a pious Jain, Srīvijaya was a powerful general and claims to have defeated his master's enemies.⁴⁸ Another record from the same locality informs us that this general was also a poet. We must not, however, confound this poet-general Srīvijaya with Srīvijaya quoted in Kavirājamārga; for the latter flourished at least a century earlier than the general of Indra.

c11.s1.23

⁴⁸ A. S. R., 1905-61 pp. 121-2.

c11.s1.24

Indra III was thus a very capable and brilliant general. During his short reign he succeeded in shattering the prestige of the Imperial Pratīhāras, and the Rāshṭrakūṭa army again became a terror in the north.

c11.s1.25

Before passing to the next king I propose to give a genealogical table showing the intimate family relationship that existed between the Rāshṭrakūṭas and the Chedis. Indra himself, his younger brother Amoghavarsha, and the latter's son Kṛshṇa III, as also the father and grand-father of Indra III had all taken wives from the Chedi family of Tripuri. This matrimonial alliance must have been of considerable help to Indra III and Kṛshṇa III in their northern campaigns.

c11.s1.26

Amoghavarsha I | Kokkala I | Kṛṣṇarāja=daughter(49), (name not known) | Śaṅkaragaṇa. Arjuna | Raṇavigraha | Mugdhatuṅga (eldest son & successor) | Jagattuṅga = Lakṣmī(50) | = Govindambā(51) | Ammaṇadeva | Yuvarāja I | Indra III = Vijambā(52) | Amoghavarsha III = Kuṇḍakadevī(53) | Lakṣmaṇa | Amoghavarsha II | Govinda IV | Kṛṣṇa III | Khoṭṭigadeva(54) | = A Chedi princess(55) (name not known) | Vikramāditya IV=Bonthādevī(56) | Taila II

c11.s1.27

49. कोक्कलसम्भूतश्च तस्य तनया या सङ्कुलस्यानुजा ॥ तस्मात् कृष्णनृपात्........ जगत्तुङ्गाभिधानः सुतः ॥ I. A., XII, p. 265.

c11.s1.28

50. चेदीश्वरशङ्करगणदुहितरि लक्ष्म्यां ततो जगत्तुङ्गात् । सूतूरभूविन्द्रनृपः.... Ibid. Sangli plates say कोक्कलसुतरणविग्रहजलेधलक्ष्मीः समुत्पन्ना । (I. A., XII, p. 247), showing that S'aṅkaragaṇa of the Karda grant is the same as Raṇavigraha. Jagattuṅga had thus married his maternal uncle's daughter, a custom recognised as legal in the Deccan.

c11.s1.29

51. Ibid. Govindambā was a younger sister of Lakṣmī. Jagattuṅga married her when he was staying with the Chedis, while out on an expedition in the north. R. G. Bhandarkar's objections to the theory that Govindambā was another wife of Jagattuṅga have been answered by Fleet. See B. G., I., ii, p. 414, n. 5. It may be noted that Vikramāditya II of the Western Chalukya dynasty had married two uterine sisters, Lokamahādevī and Trailokyamahādevī.

c11.s1.30

52. Sangli plates of Govinda IV, I. A., XII, p. 249.

c11.s1.31

53. Cf. युवराजदेवदुहितरि कुण्डकदेव्याममोघवर्षनृपात् । जातः खोट्टिदेवः नृपतिरभूत् । Kadba plates I. A. XII, p. 265.

c11.s1.32

54. Ditto.

c11.s1.33

55. The name of this princess is not known; the Deoli plates simply

Amoghavarsha II and Govinda IV

c11.s2.1

Indra died in c. 917 A.D. and was succeeded by his eldest son Amoghavarsha II. Fleet's view that Amoghavarsha II did not reign⁵⁷ cannot be accepted. The Bhadan plates of Aparājita Silāhāra, issued within 80 years of the event in question, distinctly say that Amoghavarsha II ruled for a year; and their testimony is confirmed by the Deoli and Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III, which also distinctly say that he did rule. The evidence of these plates is particularly cogent because, with reference to a prince like Jagattunga, who did not ascend the throne, they expressly mention the fact of his having not ruled.

c11.s2.2

⁵⁷ B. G., I, ii., p. 416.

c11.s2.3

The omission in the Sangli plates of Govinda IV of the name of Amoghavarsha II, and the statement there, that the former meditated upon the feet of Indra Nityavarsha and not upon those of Amoghavarsha, his immediate predecessor, show that the two brothers were on inimical terms. The phrase 'tatpādanudhyāta' does not necessarily indicate that the two kings immediately followed each other. Some of the Chālukya grants assert (I. A., VI, pp. 184, 194) that Durlabha meditated on the feet of Chāmuṇḍa though Vallabha was his immediate predecessor. Amoghavarsha II was a youth of only about twenty five⁵⁸ at the time of his accession and his

c11.s2.4

⁵⁸ Amoghavarsha I was born in 808 A.D.; his son Kṛṣṇa in c. 830,; his son Jagattunga in c. 850; his son Indra in c. 870, and his son Amoghavarsha II in c. 890; Amoghavarsha's age at the time of his accession thus works out to be about 25, supposing that all his ancestors were born when their fathers were only 20.

c11.s2.5

*Continued from the last page* say of Kṛṣṇa III that the Chedis were the elderly relations of both his wife and mother, showing that he had taken a Chedi princess for his wife. Whether Kuṇḍakadevī was his mother as she was of his brother, Khoṭṭigadeva, is not known.

c11.s2.6

⁵⁶ I. A., VIII, pp. 11 ff. For facility of reference, the relationship with the later Chalukyas also is shown in this table.

c11.s2.7

death within a year could not have been entirely due to his deep love for his father prompting him to go to heaven as soon as possible, as the Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III would make us believe. The Cambay and the Sangli plates of Govinda IV state that he neither treated his elder brother cruelly,—though he had power to do so,—nor acquired ill-fame by committing incest with his brother's wives. That Govinda should go out of his way in refuting these charges shows that there must have been ugly rumours current about his treatment of his elder brother and his wives; that these rumours had some foundation is made clear by an unpublished grant of the S'ilāhāra ruler Chhadvaideva, now in the Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay. This S'ilāhāra ruler was a contemporary of Kṛṣṇa III and his grant says that Govinda IV, who was overthrown by Amoghavarsha, was himself guilty of injustice.⁵⁹ It thus becomes clear that Govinda was suspected of having dealt unfairly with his brother. He may have peacefully superseded him, sparing his life, or may have brought about or hastened his death. 836 S'aka or 916-17 A.D. is the latest known date of Indra⁶⁰ and S'aka 840 or 918-19 A.D. is the earliest date of Govinda IV.⁶¹ So the short reign of about a year of Amoghavarsha II probably took place in 917-18 A.D.

c11.s2.8

⁵⁹ तन्नता श्रीन्द्रराजः प्राथितपृथुयशास्सार्वभौमः प्रजातः॥ श्रीमानमोघवर्षो भ्रातास्य सुतं समूलमुन्मूलय। गोजिगमन्यायकृतं सामोधमयमशात् पृथ्वीम्॥ Dacunha collection of copper plates in the Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay.

c11.s2.9

⁶⁰ Hatti Mattur inscription, I. A., XII, p. 224.

c11.s2.10

⁶¹ Ibid, p. 223.

c11.s2.11

The reign of Govinda IV, who succeeded Amoghavarsha II, was one of the least glorious ones. He was a youth of about 20, and his Sangli plates inform us that he was as beautiful as God of Love. Most of his time he spent in the pursuits of pleasures; Kharepatan plates of Raṭṭarāja state that he was the abode of the sentiment of love and was surrounded by a bevy of dancers.⁶² Deoli and Karhad plates also describe him as the very essence of love and its pleasures, and state that he took to evil ways, which led to disaffection of ministers and that he eventually perished. He, however, enjoyed life for about 15 years. He probably found no time to look after foreign affairs; a line in his Sangli record says that the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā served his palace,⁶³ suggesting that Allahabad was still in his possession. This, however, may have been perhaps the case at the beginning of his career, when the Rāṣṭrakūṭa armies may have been still in the north. Govinda IV, however, had neither the ability nor the inclination to try to hold the provinces conquered by his father. Some time during Govinda's reign, Mahīpāla reoccupied Kanauj and the Rāṣṭrakūṭa forces were either driven back or had to retire.

c11.s2.12

⁶² E. I., III, p. 298.

c11.s2.13

⁶³ यदनिन्दितराजमन्दिरं ननु गङ्गा यमुना च सेवते ।

c11.s2.14

Bhīma II of the Eastern Chālukya dynasty, who was a contemporary ruler, claims to have defeated a great army sent by king Govinda.⁶⁴ This Govinda is almost certainly Govinda IV. The defeat of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa army must have taken place towards the end of the reign of Govinda, since Bhīma II ascended the throne in c. 934 A.D. This reverse may have hastened Govinda's fall.

c11.s2.15

⁶⁴ E. I., VIII, p. 12.

c11.s2.16

The Deoli and the Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa simply state that the vicious life and lascivious ways of Govinda IV ruined his constitution, alienated the sympathies of his subjects and feudatories and led to his destruction. The manner of his losing his kingdom is described by Pampa in his Vikramārjunavijaya where he praises his patron Arikesarin II under the title of Arjuna. In the 9th Āśvāsa of the above work, in a prose passage after v. 52, we read:—

c11.s2.17

"How can a thought of ill-will occur to you on seeing and hearing the greatness of that ocean of suppliants (sic.

c11.s2.18

Arikesarin ) who, when Govindarāja was wroth with Vijayāditya, the ornament of Chālukya race, unflinchingly laid him behind and protected him, the valour of this crest-jewel of the feudatories, who drove into retreat and conquered the great feudatories, who came at the command of the universal emperor Cojjiga- the strength of arm of Arikesarin, who bringing to ruin the emperor who confronted him in hostility, fittingly conveyed the universal empire to Baddegadeva, who came trusting him."

c11.s2.19

Pampa was out to glorify his patron, and so we must accept this version with a grain of salt; but it is quite clear from this account that the feudatories of Govinda rebelled against him, and eventually offered the crown to his uncle Amoghavarsha II alias Baddegadeva. Deoli and Karhāḍ plates also confirm ⟨65⟩ the version of Pampa; they state that Amoghavarsha was pressed by the feudatories to accept the throne to ensure the preservation of the Rāshṭrakūṭa glory. Amoghavarsha III does not appear to have prompted the rebellion himself; even when the crown was offered to him he seems to have consulted an oracle before accepting it, if we are to trust the Deoli plates. ⟨66⟩ He was at this time advanced in years and he had, during his nephew's reign, led a life of retirement, mostly devoted to religion. The Karhad and Deoli plates style him as the foremost among the thoughtful, the Bhadan plates of Aparājita refer to his austerities, ⟨67⟩ a verse ⟨68⟩ in an unpublished grant of Chhadvaideva describes how Amoghavarsha purified his wealth, along with his soul, by the sacred waters of coronation. The last mentioned statement makes it clear that Amoghavarsha III actually ascended the throne and ruled.

c11.s2.20

Though Amoghavarsha III may not have himself prompted the rebellion, it is quite probable that his ambitious son Kṛṣṇa and other partisans may have worked hard to exploit the situation in order to secure the crown for him. Both Amoghavarsha III and Kṛṣṇa III had married Chedi princesses as shown already. We may, therefore, well accept the statement of the spurious Sudi plates that Amoghavarsha was staying at Tripuri, when Būtuga II married his daughter.(69) It is, therefore, not unlikely that the Chedi ruler Yuvarāja I, who was Amoghavarsha's father-in-law, may have helped his son-in-law, who was an exile at his court, by joining the confederacy that aimed at placing Amoghavarsha upon the Malkhed throne. In the Viddhas'ālabhañjikā of Rājaśekhara, who was late in his life residing at the Chedi court, (70) we seem to get an echo of this confederacy. The drama is a love story of the usual type; but it is fairly certain that its hero Karpūravarsha Yuvarāja is the same as Keyūravarsha Yuvarāja I, who was the father-in-law of Amoghavarsha III. In Act II of this drama we are told that a king of Kuntala, Caṇḍamahāsena by name, was residing at the Chedi court as an exile from his own kingdom, and towards the conclusion of the IVth Act, we are informed that the Chedi forces, which were espousing the cause of the exile king of Kuntala, were successful against the enemy in a battle fought on the banks of the Payoṣṇī, a tributary of the Tapti, and that the exile prince was crowned king of his own country. There is some difficulty in accepting these obiter dicta of Rājas'ekhara as referring to Amoghavarsha's accession: Rājas'ekhara does not retain the real names of the actors in these historic events. He names the exile Kuntala chief once as Vīrapāla (Act IV) and once as Caṇḍamahāsena (Act II). Keyūravars'a's marriage with Vīrapāla's daughter

c11.s2.21

⁶⁵ Cf. सामन्तैरथ राष्ट्रराज्यमहिमाल्स्वार्थमभ्यर्थितः।
66. Cf. देवेनापि पिनाकिना हरिकुलोल्लासैषिणा प्रेरितः। 67. E. I., III, p. 271.

c11.s2.22

68. अभिषेकजलेन समं तपश्च्युः (?) श्रेयसे समुच्छ्रित्य ।
येन धनानीव मलादनीयतात्मा परां शुद्धिम् ॥

c11.s2.23

Dacunha collection of copper plates in the Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay.

c11.s2.24

⁶⁹ E. I., III, P. 166.

c11.s2.25

⁷⁰ Konow, Karpūramañjarī, pp. 181-2.

c11.s2.26

would seriously go against the view that Vīrapāla stands for Amoghavarsha III. But it is not unlikely that the last mentioned episode may have been a poetic invention intended to complicate the love affairs in the drama, and not a historic fact. Amoghavarsha III was a devotee of Siva and the title of Caṇḍamahāsena, given to him by Rājas'ekhara, is thus appropriate. We would not be far wrong in assuming that Keyūravarsha espoused the cause of his son-in-law, and that one of the decisive battles, which ended in the overthrow of Govinda IV, was fought in Khandesh on the banks of the Payoṣṇī. We do not know who were the allies and supporters of Govinda IV. An unpublished Silāhāra grant, once in the possession of Prof. H. D. Velankar, Wilson College, Bombay, but now untraceable, after referring to the accession of Amoghavarsha III went on to observe:—

c11.s2.27

श्रीमत्कर्कराष्ट्रकूटकटके सद्धंसहर्षतो ।
रौद्रद्रोहदवप्रतापशमनं निस्त्रिंशधाराजलैः ॥
येनाकारि समुद्भूतेन्द्रघनृपा भूपाश्मभिर्विव्युता ।
भाति श्रीमदमोधवर्षसुवचनोऽसन्नतिविध्वंसनात् ॥

c11.s2.28

This verse would suggest that Karkara, a relative or feudatory Rāṣṭrakūṭa chief, fought on the side of Govinda, but was overthrown by Amoghavarsha III and his allies.

c11.s2.29

The latest known date of Govinda IV is 934 A.D., ⁷¹ and the earliest known date of Amoghavarsha III is the 7th of September, 937 A.D. ⁷² The rising against Govinda IV and the subsequent accession of Amoghavarsha III must have taken place some time during these three years. Honale inscriptions Nos. 21-23, dated 934 A.D., refer to Suvarṇavarsha as the overlord, ⁷¹ whereas Shikarpur inscriptions Nos. 194 and 322, coming from the same district, Shimoga, but dated in the next year, do not refer at all to the rule of Govinda. It would thus appear that the combination against Govinda was formed in 935 A.D. and the accession of Amoghavarsha III may be placed in the next year, since from an inscription from Isamudru (73) we learn that he had ascended the throne earlier than the 7th of September 937 A.D. It is very likely that Kṛṣṇa, the son of Amoghavarsha, may have taken a leading part in putting his father upon the throne ; he was an ambitious prince and may have induced his aged father to accept the crown.

c11.s2.30

⁷¹ E. C., VII, Honale, Nos. 21-23.

c11.s2.31

⁷² E. C., XI, Chitaldurg No. 76.

Linked texts (34)