Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c11.s2: Amoghavarsha II and Govinda IV

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c11.s2

Language
English

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 (10)