Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c12: Chapter VI. Last four Rulers

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. Last four Rulers

Amoghavarsha III

c12.s1.1

The reign of Amoghavarsha III, which commenced in c. 935 A.D., was a short one of about four years : for his son Kṛṣṇa III was already upon the throne in May 940 A.D., when the Deoli plates were issued by him. (1) Being himself a man of religious temperament, he must have presented a strong contrast with his vicious predecessor. Actual administration was very probably entirely in the hands of the crown prince Kṛṣṇa.

c12.s1.2

Revakanimmaḍi, a daughter of Amoghavarsha III and an elder sister of Kṛṣṇa III, was married to a Ganga prince, named Permadi Būtuga II. Since the first child of this union Maruḷadeva was born while Amoghavarsha III was upon the throne, and since the mother of Būtuga II was active enough in 974 A.D. to supervise the administration of the village Pattu Pebbaḷa, the statement of the Hebbal inscription, (2) that Revakanimmaḍi's marriage took place during the reign of Kṛṣṇa II, does not seem to be correct. The statement of the same record that at the time of the marriage of his great-grand-daughter, Kṛṣṇa II gave away as dowry Banavasi 12,000, Belvola 300, Purigere 300, Bagenad 70, and Kinsukad 70 to his great-grand-son-in-law seems to be equally unreliable, for the Atkur inscription informs us (3) that these districts were given by Kṛṣṇa III to his brother-in-law, as a reward for his bravery in killing the Chola crown prince Rājāditya.

c12.s1.3

⁷³ E. C., XI, Chitaldurg No. 76.

c12.s1.4

¹ E. I., V, p. 190.

c12.s1.5

² *Ibid.* IV, p. 351.

c12.s1.6

The Sudi plates inform us (4) that Amoghavarsha was staying at Tripuri when this marriage took place. These plates are no doubt spurious, but for reasons discussed already in the last chapter, we can well believe that statement. Būtuga also was then not the ruling Ganga prince, for Ereyappa was at that time ruling at Talkad.

c12.s1.7

The crown prince Kṛṣṇa undertook the task of putting his brother-in-law upon the Ganga throne. He killed Dantiga and Vappuga, who were probably Noḷamba princes (5) and feudatories of Rāchamalla, the Ganga ruler then upon the throne. Then he attacked and killed Rāchamalla himself, and put his brother-in-law upon the Ganga throne. Isamudru (6) inscription, which was inscribed on 7th of September 937 A.D., refers to Amoghavarsha as the ruling emperor and concludes as follows:—

c12.s1.8

In Paleyar Deva attacked and smote and slew the Pande king in Srīpura; Indra's son smote a Pallava king... This Kannara of great might slew Ganga Permadi and gave

c12.s1.9

³ E. I., VI, p. 55.

c12.s1.10

⁴ E. I., III, p. 176.

c12.s1.11

⁵ Ayyapadeva Nanninga was the Noḷamba chief in c. 919 and he was an ally of Ereyappa, whose successor Rāchamalla was killed by Kṛṣṇa. The name of Nanniga's son was Anniga. [E. I., X., pp, 54 ff.] The names of Dantiga and Vappuga bear a family resemblance to Nanniga and Anniga, hence the conjecture in the text.

c12.s1.12

⁶ E. C., XI. Chitaldurg 76.

c12.s1.13

Fleet notices a record at the Mahākūṭa temple of Badāmi, dated October 934 A.D., which refers to Mahāsamanta Bappuvarasa, who was a very Bhairava on a minor scale to the enemies of the brave Gopāla (B. G., I. ii. p. 417 n. 3). This Bappuva could have been assumed to be the same as Vappuga killed by Kṛṣṇa, were it not very improbable that such an enemy could have challenged the authority of Amoghavarsha III in the very heart of the empire.

c12.s1.14

the throne to Bhūvallabha. Thus did those of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa line slay and gain renown." The first two incidents, here referred to, have yet to be definitely identified, but the last one is obviously the same as the overthrow and destruction of Rāchamalla by Kṛṣṇa and the enthronement of his brother-in-law, Būtuga.

c12.s1.15

Kṛṣṇa then marched northwards and defeated the Chedis, though his mother and wife had been born in that family. The forts of Kālañjara and Chitrakūṭa, situated in the very heart of Chandella country, were occupied by the Rāṣṭrakūṭa army, (7) and the Gurjara-Pratihāra emperor lost all hope of capturing them. An inscription, (8) recently published, confirms the testimony of the Deoli plates. This inscription was found at Jura in the Maihar State of the Baghelkhand Agency. It is written upon a stone and contains a eulogy of Kṛṣṇa III in Canarese. That a Canarese eulogy of Kṛṣṇa should be discovered in Baghelkhand can be explained only on the assumption that the claim to the conquest of Chitrakūṭa and Kālañjara is well founded. The Rāṣṭrakūṭas continued to hold these forts for about ten years; they were reconquered by the Chandella king Yaśovarman some time before 953 A.D.

c12.s1.16

I have assumed here that the exploits of Kṛṣṇa described above were performed while he was yet a Yuvaraja, and not subsequent to his accession. In this respect, I differ from previous writers; an analysis of the Deoli plates, however, supports my reading of the situation. These plates were issued in May 940 A.D. After mentioning the accession of Amoghavarsha III, verse 19 of this record says that his son Kṛṣṇa proved his strength even while a *Kumāra* or a prince. Vv. 20-25 then mention the killing of Dantiga, Vappuga, and Rāchamalla and the capture of Kālañjara and Chitrakūṭa. V. 26 then observes that all the feudatories between the Eastern and Western ocean obeyed the commands of Kṛṣṇa, who himself, however, was always obedient to his father. V. 27 then informs us that his father died, happy to have seen his son embraced by the damsel fame. Then follows a description of the coronation of Kṛṣṇa III.

c12.s1.17

⁷ It is not possible to argue that Kṛṣṇa assisted his Chedi relations in holding these places against the Chandella; for the Deoli plates, issued in May 940 A.D., soon after the capture of Kālañjara, state that Kṛṣṇa III had conquered the elders of his wife and mother. This shows that Kṛṣṇa was not co-operating, but fighting with the Chedis.

c12.s1.18

⁸ E. I., XIX, p. 287.

c12.s1.19

The above analysis of the Deoli plates makes it absolutely clear that the restoration of Būtuga to the Gāṅga throne, and the capture of Chitrakūṭa and Kālañjara were the achievements of Kṛṣṇa while yet a crown-prince. It may also be pointed out that Amoghavarsha was alive on the 3rd of December 939 A.D.⁹ and that all the above campaigns in southern and central India could not have been physically possible within a period of four months. And yet we shall have to assume that such was the case, if we are to hold that these campaigns were subsequent to his accession; for the Deoli plates, issued by Kṛṣṇa in May 940 mention all these achievements of his. The title *Paramabhaṭṭāraka Parameśvara-mahārājādhirāja* given by the Jura record to Kṛṣṇa III would not go against my hypothesis. The *praśasti* may have been composed and inscribed a few years later, and in the meanwhile Kṛṣṇa may have succeeded his father and conquered Tanjore and Kanchi. It is also possible that Kṛṣṇa may have undertaken a second expedition in Baghelkhand after his accession, when the Jura inscription may have been inscribed.

c12.s1.20

⁹ E. C., XI, Chitaldurga No. 77, dated उत्तरायण संक्रांति, शके ८६१ पौष.

c12.s1.21

A record from Sravan Belgola¹⁰ refers to a battle between Rakkasa-mane and Koneya Ganga when Bogya, a servant of Gaṅga-Vajra, rallied his retreating forces and made the whole forces of Vaddega and Koneya Gaṅga flee with terror. Although it cannot be proved at present that Koneya was another name of Būtuga and Vajra of Rāchamalla, the record shows that the forces of Amoghavarsha III, who was also known as Baddega, were operating against the Gangas, showing thereby that it was in his reign, and not in that of his son, that Būtuga was put on the Ganga throne. Kṛṣṇa, therefore, was clearly a crown-prince when he performed the above-mentioned exploits.

c12.s1.22

¹⁰ E. C., II, No. 138 (New Edition numbering).

c12.s1.23

Amoghavarsha died some time after the 3rd of December 939 A.D. and before May 940 A.D., happy to see that his son had proved himself an able and successful general.

Krishna III

c12.s2.1

Kṛṣṇa III ascended the throne some time in December 939 A.D.¹¹ He had already established the reputation of his arms while still a crown-prince; still he seems to have waited for a while after his accession before undertaking further campaigns. His accession seems to have been a peaceful one; the spurious Sudi plates of Būtuga II no doubt state that Būtuga secured the kingdom for Kṛṣṇa on the death of Baddega *i. e.* Amoghavarsha III.¹² So far, however, there is no evidence forthcoming to show that there was any trouble at the accession of Kṛṣṇa III. His prestige was already very great and it does not seem likely that any serious claimant may have challenged his accession. The only possibility that we can conceive of is that if Kṛṣṇa were absent at the time of his father's death in northern India on his military expedition, there may have arisen some trouble, which Būtuga may have put down before the return of Kṛṣṇa. The invasion of Chola kingdom by Kṛṣṇa III did not take place earlier than the 3rd year of his reign, and we know of no military conquests earlier than that date.

c12.s2.2

¹¹ Sorab No. 476 ( E. C., VIII ) supplies 939 as the earliest date for Kṛṣṇa as emperor. His father was alive in December of that year ( E. C., XI, pp. 29-30 ). Hence the statement in the text. See supra, pp. 122-3, foot-note No. 39.

c12.s2.3

¹² E. I., III, p. 176.

c12.s2.4

Kṛṣṇa first turned his attention to the south. In Gangavadi his brother-in-law Būtuga was upon the throne; the Bāṇa prince Vikramāditya III was an ally of his, since he calls himself a dear friend of Kṛṣṇarāja.¹³ The Chola king Parāntaka was an ambitious ruler; he had conquered Bāṇavādi and put the Ganga-Bāṇa prince, Pṛthvīpati II Hastimalla in its charge. Kṛṣṇa decided to attack the Chola kingdom, apparently to reinstate Vikramāditya III, but really to annex as much of the south as possible to his empire.

c12.s2.5

¹³ Udayendiram grant of Vikramāditya III, E. I., XI, p. 232. Hultzsch has himself abandoned his earlier view that this Kṛṣṇa was Kṛṣṇa II and quite rightly; for, the great grand-father of Vikramāditya was alive in 909 A. D. I., VIII, p. 3.

c12.s2.6

The Kanyakumari inscription of Parāntaka states that the Chola king had himself fought with Kṛṣṇarāja and defeated him, earning thereby the title of Vīrachola.¹⁴ The time and place of the defeat are not stated; but the record, if not an empty boast, must be referring to some engagements that may have been fought before 944 A.D., wherein he may have scored some local successes. But these were minor ones and did not affect the main issue; for, we have overwhelming evidence to show that Kṛṣṇa III was occupying Tondai-Maṇḍalam from c. 944 to the end of his reign. Siddhalingamādam inscription from South Arcot district, dated in the fifth year of Kṛṣṇa's reign, refers to the conquest of Kanchi and Tanjai or Tanjore;¹⁵ the Solapuram inscription from North Arcot district is dated in Śaka year 871 or 949-50 A.D., the year in which the emperor Kannaradevavallabha, having pierced Rājāditya, entered Tondai-Maṇḍalam;¹⁶ an inscription from the Ukkala Viṣṇu temple in the North Arcot district is dated in the 16th year of his reign and mentions him again as the conqueror of Kanchi and Tanjore.¹⁷ The same is the case with two inscriptions from Tiru in Chingleput district, dated in the 17th and 19th year of Kaṇṇaradeva.¹⁸ The Karhad plates¹⁹ were issued in 959 A.D., when Kṛṣṇa was encamped at Melpati in North Arcot district, engaged in parcelling out the territory there among his servants, and accepting heavy tributes from the lords of Maṇḍalas. An inscription from Vellore²⁰ district is dated in the 26th year of his reign. The very fact that so many inscriptions hailing from the territory usually governed by the Cholas and Pallavas are dated in Kṛṣṇa's reign shows, especially when considered in the light of the Karhad plates, that the whole of Tondai-Maṇḍalam was directly administered by Kṛṣṇa III throughout the major part of his reign.

c12.s2.7

¹⁴ Travancore Archæological Series, III, p. 143, v. 48.

c12.s2.8

¹⁵ Madras Epigraphical Collection for 1909, No. 375.

c12.s2.9

¹⁶ E. I., VII, p. 195.

c12.s2.10

¹⁷ Referred to at E. I., IV, p. 82.

c12.s2.11

¹⁸ E. I., III, p. 285.

c12.s2.12

¹⁹ E. I., IV, p. 278.

c12.s2.13

²⁰ E. I., III, p. 81.

c12.s2.14

According to the Siddhalingamadam inscription, we have seen that Kṛṣṇa had already conquered Kanchi and Tanjore before the fifth year of his reign. His accession took place either in 939 A.D., or perhaps in 940 A.D., and, therefore, his occupation of Tondai-Maṇḍalam may be placed in c. 945 A.D. T. A. Gopinath Rao's view²¹ that Tondai-Maṇḍalam could not have been occupied before the battle of Takkolam ignores the possibility of that battle itself being the result of a counter-move on the part of Parāntaka to oust the invador. The entry referred to in the Sholapuram inscription would be recording the further advance of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa army after the victory at Takkolam.

c12.s2.15

²¹ E. I., XV, p. 51.

c12.s2.16

The decisive battle in the war was fought at Takkolam in North Arcot district in 949 A.D. The Chola army was led into the battle by the crown-prince²² Rājāditya, while the Rāṣṭrakūṭa forces were strengthened by a contingent under the Ganga ruler Būtuga II. The Cholas fought stubbornly, and the Atkur record (23) admits that for a time the Rāṣṭrakūṭa forces were overwhelmed; none dared to counter-attack. But Maṇalera and Būtuga succeeded in making a rally; the latter dashed against the crown-prince, killed the elephant he was riding, got into the howdah and killed him there. The earlier view that Būtuga killed Rājāditya treacherously, while embracing him or taking a walk with him, was based partly upon a wrong meaning ascribed to the term 'bisugeye' and partly upon the mistake of reading 'Kaḷḷa-age for Kaḷān-age.(24) The death of Rājāditya in the battle of Takkolam is confirmed by the Chola records themselves; the large Leyden grant (25) states that Rājāditya died during the battle with Kṛṣṇa, while seated on the back of an elephant. It will be noticed that this record also supports the view that treachery played no part in the death of the crown-prince.

c12.s2.17

²² The earlier view that Rājāditya had already ascended the throne before the battle of Takkolam had to be abandoned in view of the discovery of inscriptions dated in the 45th and 46th years of Parāntaka. See E. I., XIX, p. 83, for further information. The earlier view is defended by T. A. Gopinath Rao in E. I., XV, p. 51, but his arguments are not convincing.

c12.s2.18

The Sudi plates (26) of Būtuga II are no doubt spurious but their statement that after the defeat of Rājāditya's forces Būtuga besieged Tanjapuri or Tanjore under orders from Kṛṣṇa, may well have been a historic fact. The epithet 'Tanjaiyunkonḍa' or the conqueror of Tanjore has been given to Kṛṣṇa III, as we have seen already, in so many records found in Tonḍai-Manḍalam, that the conclusion becomes inevitable that he had conquered and occupied the Chola capital at least for some time. The statements in the Karhad plates that Kṛṣṇa defeated the Pandyas and the Keralas, exacted tributes from the king of Ceylon and planted the creeper of his fame at Rāmeśvara may all of them be true; they receive an unexpected corroboration from Somadeva, who finished his Yas'astilaka about two months later than the issue of the Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III, i. e. in May 959 A.D. At the end of this work the author speaks of Kṛṣṇarāja as a glorious monarch, who had subdued the Pandyas, the Cholas, the Cheras, and Sinhala.²⁷ After the overthrow of the Chola army and the capture of Tanjore, march to Rāmeśvara could hardly have presented any insurmountable difficulties. Kṛṣṇa was not content with merely defeating the Cholas; the fact that so many inscriptions from Tondai-Maṇḍalam are dated in the reign of Kṛṣṇa III makes it clear that the northern portions of the Chola kingdom were annexed by him to his empire. The statement in the Karhad plates that Kṛṣṇa was encamped, at the time when the plates were issued, at Melpati in North Arcot in order to parcel out livings i. e. territories among his dependents and receive tributes from feudatories, also shows that part of the Chola kingdom was annexed and placed under the charge of Rāṣṭrakūṭa officers. The territory to the south of Tondai-Maṇḍalam could not be annexed, as we do not come across any records from that area recognising the sovereignty of Kṛṣṇa III. The Ganga ruler Būtuga II, who had acquired the throne with the help of Kṛṣṇa, was his right-hand man in this campaign; in recognition of his valuable services Kṛṣṇa conferred upon him Banavasi 12000, Belvol 300, Kinsukad 70, Bagenad 70 and Purigere 300.²⁸ The latest known date of Būtuga is April 953 A.D.²⁹ He died a few years later while his brother-in-law was still upon the Rāṣṭrakūṭa throne, and was succeeded by his son Noḷambāntaka Mārasimha, born not of Revakanimmaḍi, the sister of Kṛṣṇa III, but of another wife named Kollavarasi. The new ruler continued to be as intensely loyal to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa connection as his father, and helped Kṛṣṇa in his military campaigns.

c12.s2.19

²³ E. I., VI, p. 56.

c12.s2.20

²⁴ J. R. A. S., 1909, pp. 443 ff. Fleet, who was responsible for the earlier mistake, has admitted the accuracy of the new reading.

c12.s2.21

²⁵ A. S. S. I., IV, p. 201.

c12.s2.22

²⁶ E. I., III, p. 183.

c12.s2.23

²⁷ P. 419 (Nirṇayasāgara edition).

c12.s2.24

²⁸ Atkur Inscription, E. I., VI, p. 57.

c12.s2.25

²⁹ Ibid, p. 180.

c12.s2.26

Kṛṣṇa's commitments in the south affected, in the latter part of his reign, his position in the north. He had committed the blunder of alienating the sympathies of his Chedi relatives by attacking them in his campaign in the north while a Yuvaraja; and the Chandellas rose to power under Yaśovarman and Dhanga. The Khajuraho inscription (30) shows that the fort of Kalanjar was recaptured by the Chandellas before 953-4 A.D., and Chitrakūṭa could not have remained much longer under the Rāṣṭrakūṭa control. The Marathi C. P., however, continued to be under the rule of Kṛṣṇa; Deoli plates grant a village in the district of Chhindwara, and in the same district two fragmentary inscriptions of his have been discovered. (31)

c12.s2.27

We have already seen how the Paramāra chief Kṛṣṇarāja or Upendra was defeated by Indra III, sometime in c. 915 A.D. The Paramāras continued to be the feudatories of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas down to the time of Kṛṣṇa III, for the recently published copper-plates from Harsola, (32) issued by Siyaka in 949 A.D., referred to Akālavarṣa Pṛthivīvallabha, the son of Amoghavarṣadeva, as the feudal lord of the Paramāras. We find that the Harsola plates refer to villages in Kheṭaka division i. e. modern Kaira district in northern Gujrat, as being under the immediate government of the Paramāras. Southern Gujrat was reconquered by Kṛṣṇa II; it would seem that it was handed over to the Paramāra feudatories by the successors of Indra III for administrative purposes.

c12.s2.28

In the latter half of his reign Kṛṣṇa had to undertake expeditions to the north. S'ravaṇa Belgola epitaph of Mārasimha (33) states that he conquered the northern regions for Kṛṣṇa III and thereby acquired the title of the King of the Gurjaras. It is thus clear that Kṛṣṇa had to attack some ruler, who had risen to eminence and was defying his authority in Gujrat. Konow thinks that the Gurjara king, who was defeated by Kṛṣṇa and Mārasimha may have been Mūlaraja.(34) It is, however, more likely that Sīyaka, the Paramāra feudatory of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, governing Mālva and northern Gujrat, may have been the ruler defeated by Mārasimha and Kṛṣṇa III. Holkeri inscriptions Nos. 23 and 33, dated 968 and 965 A.D. respectively, refer to two of Mārasimha's captains, Sūdrakayya and Goggiyamma, as Ujjenībhujangas.(35) These captains were appointed to rule over Kadambalige 1000 probably as a reward for their services in the expedition against the Ujjain ruler. Since Sīyaka's dominions included northern Gujrat in 949 A.D., we can well understand how Mārasimha II became known as Gurjarādhirāja by his victory over that ruler. We have seen how Sīyaka was a Rāṣṭrakūṭa feudatory in 949 A.D.; his sack of Malkhed in 972-3 may have been a revenge for the defeat that was inflicted upon him by Kṛṣṇa III.

c12.s2.29

³⁰ E. I., I, p. 124.

c12.s2.30

³¹ Hiralal, List of Inscriptions in C. P. and Berar, p. 81.

c12.s2.31

³² E. I., XIX, pp. 236 ff.

c12.s2.32

We have seen already how the Jura inscription refers to Kṛṣṇa's conquest of Kanchi and Tanjore.(36) The inscription is unfortunately not dated, and therefore the question, whether Kṛṣṇa had led another expedition in the north after his accession, cannot be definitely settled. It is possible that after the defeat of the Paramāras, the army of Kṛṣṇa may have once more overrun Bundelkhand. But this is not very likely, since the Chandellas had grown powerful by this time and reconquered Kalanjar before 953 A.D. Kṛṣṇa also was very busy in the south. Under these circumstances it seems most likely that there was no second expedition against the Chedis and the Chandellas, but that the Jura Pras'asti was inscribed subsequent to the conquest of Kanchi and Tanjore in c. 946 A.D.

c12.s2.33

The recently published Arumbaka plates of Bādapa(37) inform us that the Eastern Chalukya king, Amma II, was driven out by Bādappa, son of Yudhāmalla II, with the help of Karṇa. Since the epithet Vallabha is added to the name of Karṇa, it is almost certain that Karṇa is the same as Kṛṣṇa III, the form Karṇa being a wrong Sanskritisation of Kannara, the Prakrit name of Kṛṣṇa. It would thus appear that Kṛṣṇa completed his mastery over the whole of the peninsula to the south of the Narmadā by putting his own ally on the throne of Vengi. This he must have accomplished at the fag end of his reign.³⁸

c12.s2.34

³⁴ E. I., X, p. 78.

c12.s2.35

³⁵ E. C., XI.

c12.s2.36

³⁶ E. I., XIX, p. 287.

c12.s2.37

³⁷ Cf. आश्रित्य कर्णराजराज्यवल्लभं बाडपाधिपः । विनिर्गमय्य तं देशादम्मराजराज्यमर्जितम् । E. I. XIX, p. 137.

c12.s2.38

³⁸ The usually accepted period for the reign of Amma II is from c. 945-c. 970 A.D. and, Kṛṣṇa seems to have died before February 968 A.D. But the eastern Cālukya dates are not very rigidly fixed, and a difference of a couple of years is, therefore, not an insurmountable difficulty in identifying Karṇavallabha with Kṛṣṇa III.

c12.s2.39

An inscription from Kollagallu, dated Sunday the 6th day of the bright half of Kṣhaya Phālguna of Śaka 889 A.D. i. e. 17th February 968 A.D., states that Kṛṣṇa had died in that year and that Khoṭṭiga had succeeded him. His death, therefore, may be placed early in 968 A.D.³⁹

c12.s2.40

³⁹ Madras Epigraphical Collection for 1913 No. 236. There is some difficulty in determining the exact beginning and end of the reign of Kṛṣṇa III. The latest known date of his father is 3-12-939 A.D. (E. C., XI, pp. 29-30). The earliest known date for Kṛṣṇa himself is the one supplied by Sorab No. 476 (E. C., VIII), which is also 939 A.D. It is a pity that the month and the day of the year should not have been given in this record. Kṛṣṇa's accession may be, therefore, placed in December 939 A.D. or Mārgaśīrsha Ś'aka 861. Now quite a large number of his inscriptions have been found dated in the 28th year of his reign (e. g., Nos. 125 of 1906, 364 of 1902 of the Madras Epigraphical Collection) and one hailing from Kilur Virattanes'vara temple in south Arcot district is dated in the 30th year of his reign [No. 232 of the Madras Epigraphical Collection for 1902 ]. Now supposing Kṛṣṇa ascended the throne in December 939 A.D. or Mārgas'īrsha S'aka 861, the 30th year of his reign will begin in December, 968 A.D. of Mārgas'īrsha, S'aka 890. But from Kolagallu stone inscription in Bellary Taluka, we know that Kṛṣṇa had died before the 6th day of Kṣhaya

c12.s2.41

Krishna was the last able monarch in the Rashtrakuta dynasty. None of his predecessors had so completely dominated the Peninsula as he could do. Even Govinda III could not bring under his direct administration territories of the Pallava kings. Nor could he put upon the Vengi throne a friend or nominee of his. In the north, Krishna's policy was first successful, but later on he had to relinquish his advance positions in the Chandella country. He could not counteract the influence of Yasovarman and Dhanga, and committed a great mistake in allowing his Paramara feudatories to rise to great power on the northern frontiers of his kingdom. But it must be admitted that what he lost in the north was more than compensated by his solid gains in the south. He must have been an able ruler and skilful general; otherwise his achievements would not have been possible.

c12.s2.42

*Continued from the last page*

c12.s2.43

Phalguna of S'aka 889 i. e. before the 17th February 968 A.D. (No 236 of 1913): It is possible to argue that the death of Krishna took place between the 5th and 15th day of Chaitra of S'aka 890; for, Holkere No. 23 (E. C. XI), dated Chaitra S'uddha Panchami, refers to Krishna as sovereign ruler, while Sorab No. 531 (E. C., VIII), dated Chaitra S'uddha Paurnima, refers to his successor Khottiga as the ruling emperor. But the mention of Krishna as the ruling emperor in Holkere No. 23 was very probably due to the fact that the news of his death had not travelled till then to Simoga district. Krishna's death, therefore, took place before February 968 A.D. or Phalguna 889 S'aka. Now since Krishna ascended the throne not earlier than December 939 A.D., his 30th year, referred to in Kolagallu inscription mentioned above, could not have commenced before December 968 A.D. But Krishna had died at least ten months before that date and therefore the 30th year of his reign was impossible. This discrepancy can be explained on the supposition that Amoghavarsha III, being mostly preoccupied with religious practices, his son was the de facto ruler even in his father's life-time. His regnal years may have been counted in some localities from a date earlier than his formal coronation or his father's death. This overlapping of dates is similar to that of the reigns of Amoghavarsha I and his son Krishna II. The causes in both cases were probably the same.

Khottiga Nityavarsha Amoghavarsha IV

c12.s3.1

⁴⁰ Kyasnur records show that Khottiga had very likely the epithet of Amoghadeva. See E. I., XVI, p. 284.

c12.s3.2

Kṛṣṇa III had a son, who was the father of Indra IV. But he seems to have predeceased his father, and his son being too young, Khoṭṭiga, a younger brother of Kṛṣṇa III, succeeded to the throne early in 968 A.D. The Deoli grant of Kṛṣṇa III was made in 940 A.D. for the spiritual benefit of Jagattuṅgadeva, a younger brother of Kṛṣṇa, who was dearer to him than his own life. It is possible that this Jagattuṅga may be the same as Khoṭṭiga; for the Deoli plates state that Jagattuṅga was extremely beautiful and we know from the Adargunchi inscription⁴¹ that "Raṭṭakandarpa" was one of the epithets of Khoṭṭiga. If Jagattuṅga was not the same as Khoṭṭiga, he may have been another brother of Kṛṣṇa III.

c12.s3.3

⁴¹ I. A., XII, p. 256.

c12.s3.4

It was in the reign of Khoṭṭiga that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa power began to decline. The first blow was given by the Paramāras from the north. Arthuna inscription of Paramāra Chāmuṇḍarāya, dated 1079 A.D.,⁴² refers to king Srī Harsha's wars with the lord of the Karṇātas. That the opponent of Harsha was not Tailapa or Karka III is proved by the Udaipur pras'asti of the kings of Malva⁴³, which distinctly says that Harshadeva captured the royal glory and splendour of Khoṭṭigadeva. The first land grant of Vākpati II, the successor of Sīyaka or Srī-Harsha is dated in 974-75 A.D., and that of Karka III, the successor of Khoṭṭiga, in September 972 A.D. Harsha and Khoṭṭiga were thus contemporary rulers, and the statement of the Udaipur pras'asti, therefore, may be accepted as correct. It is further corroborated by Dhanapāla, the author of Pāiyalachchhī, who informs us in v. 276 that his work was written at Dhārā in Vikrama Saṃvat 1029 i. e. 972-73 A.D., when Mānyakheṭa was plundered by the king of Malva.⁴⁴ Śravaṇa-Belgola epitaph of Mārasimha II states that the scenes of his victories were the banks of the Tapti, the Vindhya forests, Mānyakheṭa, etc. The victory at Mānyakheṭa presupposes the presence of an enemy in that place. This record, therefore, indirectly confirms the statements in the Paramāra records that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa capital was plundered by Sīyaka.

c12.s3.5

⁴² E. I., XIV, p. 299.

c12.s3.6

⁴³ Cf. श्रीहर्षदेव इति खोट्टिदेवलक्ष्मीम् जग्राह यो युधि... | E. I., I, p. 235.

c12.s3.7

⁴⁴ E. I., XIII, p. 180;

c12.s3.8

We have seen that Khoṭṭiga was alive early in 972 A.D., when Mānyakheṭa was sacked; he seems to have died during the war with the Paramāras, for we find his successor issuing the Kharda plates⁴⁵ in September of the same year. Sorab inscription No. 455 is dated in 972, and refers to Karka as the ruling emperor. We may, therefore, place the death of Khoṭṭiga and the accession of Karka II, in the middle of 972 A.D.

c12.s3.9

⁴⁵ E. I., XII, p. 263,

Karka II

c12.s4.1

Karka II was the son of Nirupama, a younger brother of Kṛṣṇa III and Khoṭṭiga. It cannot be said definitely whether this Nirupama is the same as or different from Jagaṭṭuṅga, who is mentioned as a younger brother of Kṛṣṇa III in the Deoli plates. It would appear that either Khoṭṭiga, like Kṛṣṇa III, left no male issue, or that Karka managed to usurp the throne after his uncle's death.

c12.s4.2

The Kharda grant of Karka II describes his glory and exploits in glowing terms; we are told that he was a terror to the Pandyas, had fought with the Hūṇas with an untrembling mind, and had defeated the armies of the Cholas and the Gurjaras. But all these exploits seem to be more imaginary than real; for he was hardly 18 months upon the throne, when he was defeated and ousted from it by Taila II. The Gadag inscription⁴⁶ of Vikramāditya VI states that the Śaka year in which the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were overthrown was Srīmukha; so it must be Saka 895. The overthrow of Karka then took place sometime between March 973 and March 974. A.D. But since the latest known date (47) of Karka is July 973, we may reasonably conclude that he was defeated in the autumn or winter of 973 A.D.

c12.s4.3

⁴⁶ I. A., XXI, p. 167,

c12.s4.4

The fall of the mighty Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire was indeed dramatic. In December 967 Kṛṣṇa III was the master of practically all the territories to the south of the Narmadā; in December 973 his nephew was overthrown and the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire remained only in memory. The causes of this dramatic downfall are not far to seek. The forward and aggressive policy of Kṛṣṇa III must have caused a severe drain on the treasury, and alienated the sympathies of his feudatories and neighbours. His commitments in the south left him no time to control the north. To permit the Paramāras to rise to power was a great tactical blunder. A still greater one was the war with the Chedies, who were so closely connected with the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and seem to have helped the accession of Amoghavarsha III. The sympathies of the Chedies were alienated; Taila II was a nephew i. e. sister's son of Yuvarāja II, the reigning Chedi monarch, (47) and therefore the Chedi court probably must have actively helped Taila against the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. The cession of the Banavāsi 12,000, Belvola 300, Purigeri 300, Kinsukad 70 and Bagenad 70 to the Gangas must have seriously impoverished the Imperial treasury, as the Ganga ruler thus obtained control over most of the territories to the south of the Kṛṣṇa. (48) The territories under the direct Imperial administration further diminished in extent by the rise to semi-independence of the Silāhāras of Konkana, the Raṭṭas of Saundatti and the Yādavas of Seuṇadeśa. (49) These were young, growing and ambitious states, only awaiting an opportunity to throw off the imperial yoke.

c12.s4.5

⁴⁷ Guṇḍur inscription, I, A., XII, p. 272 (Āṣāḍha month).

c12.s4.6

⁴⁸ Hebbal inscription, E. I., IV, p. 355.

c12.s4.7

⁴⁹ Bhillama II, grand-father of Bhillama III, who had issued the Kalas-Budruk plates in 1025 A.D., was probably a contemporary of Karka. He had married a daughter of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Jhanjha (E. I., XII, p. 212) who probably belonged to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa faction opposing Karka. Bhillama II, therefore, may have joined the confederacy to oust Karka.

c12.s4.8

Karka's councillors were vicious, (50) and his own character was probably not much different. This must have alienated the sympathies of his subjects and feudatories. Some of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kinsmen must have espoused the cause of his enemy Taila, because the latter's wife Jākavvā was the daughter of Bhammaha or Brahmahara, who was a Rāṣṭrakūṭa chief. The prestige of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa arms was besides completely shattered by the occupation and plunder of the capital by the Paramāras a couple of years before.

c12.s4.9

Taila II, who eventually overthrew the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire, is claimed by later records to have descended from an uncle of Kīrtivarman II of the early Chalukya dynasty. The genealogy as given in the Kauthem, Yewur, Nilgund and Miraj grants is as follows:—

c12.s4.10

| | Vijayāditya | |
| Vikramāditya II | | A brother (described Bhīma-papākrama. Name not given.) |
| Kīrtivārman II | | Kirtivarman III |
| | | Taila I |
| | | Vikramāditya III |
| | | Bhīma |
| | | Ayaṇṇa = Kṛṣṇanandanā |
| | | Vikramāditya IV = Bonthādevī (daughter of Lakshmaṇa, the Chedi king) |
| | | Taila II = Lakshmī, daughter of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Brahmahabha, |

c12.s4.11

⁵⁰ The Nilgund inscription thus describes the two principal advisors and generals of Karka, E. I., XII, p. 150.

c12.s4.12

The above genealogy seems to be suspicious. It claims for the later Chālukyas a descent from the early Chālukyas of Badāmī, but, as pointed out by R. G. Bhandarkar, no record of theirs claims for them Mānavya Gotra and descent from Hāriti, as is invariably the case with all the records of the earlier Chālukyas. Kirtivarman III of the above genealogy was a contemporary and cousin of Kirtivarman II, who was overthrown by Dantidurga. His time, therefore, must be c. 750-c. 770. The next five generations of the genealogy will thus cover a period of about 200 years, giving an average of 40 years per generation, which is obviously extremely improbable. The genealogy may be correct upto Taila; Kirtivarman III and his unnamed father seem to be imaginary personages. The genealogy makes Kirtivarman III a cousin of Kirtivarman II, but it is well-known that contemporary cousins in Hindu families do not usually bear the same names. Further, if the connection of the house of Taila II with the earlier Chālukyas were really genuine, it is strange that the secretariate of Taila II should know the names of all the ancestors, but that its information should fail just in the case of the founder of the house, who, it is alleged, was a brother of the Chālukya king Vikramāditya II. It is, therefore, clear that the genealogy beyond Taila I is not above suspicion. The question, therefore, whether Taila II was really connected with the Chālukyas of Badāmī must be left an open one.

c12.s4.13

There is nothing to enlighten us as to where the ancestors of Taila were living or ‘ruling’. We have seen already that Yas’ovarman, a Chālukya feudatory, son of Balavarman, was holding some petty Jahagir in Dharwar district in the time of Govinda III⁵¹; but in the ancestry of Taila II neither of these names appear. Chālukya mahāsāmantas Mārasimha and Goggi are referred to in a few records from Mysore State; but they also do not figure among the known ancestors of Taila II.

c12.s4.14

⁵¹ Kadba plates, E. I., IV. p. 340.

c12.s4.15

Chālukya Arikesarin II, who had taken part in the dethronement of Govinda IV, also cannot be connected with Taila II; Pampa in his *Vikramārjunavijaya* gives the genealogy of his patron for as many as eight generations, ⁵² but we nowhere find any of the ancestors of Taila II in it, as a glance at the genealogy given below will show:—

c12.s4.16

⁵² J. R. A. S., 1882, p. 19.

c12.s4.17

Yudhāmalla Chālukya ( who ruled over Sapādalaksha )

c12.s4.18

Arikesarin I ( who with the ministers of Bengerivishaya penetrated into the kingdom of Nirupama. See *ante*. p. 51 n. 10 )

c12.s4.19

Nārasimhabhadradeva

c12.s4.20

Dugdhamalla

c12.s4.21

Baddega ( who had captured Bhīma )

c12.s4.22

Yudhāmalla II

c12.s4.23

Nārasimha ( who defeated Mahīpāla during the campaigns of Indra III; see *ante*. pp. 102. )

c12.s4.24

Arikesarin II ( Patron of Pampa : helped the accession of Amoghavarsha III; see *ante*. p. 102.)

c12.s4.25

Finally we have to consider the case of the Chālukya chief Vijayāditya, who was shielded by Arikesarin II, against Govinda II. ⁵³ The name of this person also does not figure in the known genealogy of the house of Taila II. It seems that the ancestors of Taila were too insignificant; for even the title ‘Rājan’, which in our times did not convey invariably even the status of a feudatory, is not given to them by their powerful and illustrious descendants. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the daughter of Kṛshṇa, whom Ayyaṇdeva had married, could have been a daughter of Kṛshṇa II of the Rāshṭrakūṭa.

c12.s4.26

⁵³ See *ante*. pp. 107-8

c12.s4.27

dynasty, (54) especially since neither Ayyaṇḍeva nor Kṛṣṇa is given even the courtesy title ‘Rājan.’ The place where they were living is also unknown; it might perhaps be suggested that since Taila was a son-in-law of the Chedi ruler Lakṣmaṇa, and since the northern parts of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa dominions first passed under his control, he may have been living somewhere in the northern portion of the state of Hyderabad.

c12.s4.28

How Taila II suddenly became strong enough to challenge the mighty Rāṣṭrakūṭas, and who his allies were, is still a mystery. We have already seen how it is very likely that the Yādava ruler Bhillama II of Seuṇadeśa may perhaps have been one of his allies. (55) Pampa states (56) that his patron Arikesarin II had put to flight Bappuva, a younger brother of Karka. But Arikesarin II was dead before 959 A.D. when his son Vadyagarāja (Baḍḍega II?) was ruling, and therefore Bappuva, the younger brother of Karka whom he put to flight, may have been a brother of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Karkara who was a partisan of Govinda IV. Baḍḍega II may have possibly sided with Taila II. Since Taila’s father had married a daughter of the Chedi ruler Lakṣmaṇa, whose son was ruling that kingdom at the time of his accession, it is possible that he may have derived some assistance from his maternal uncle, especially since Kṛṣṇa II had committed the blunder of alienating the sympathies of that house by wantonly attacking its territories in his northern campaign. It has to be observed, however, that no Chedi records mention any such help given to Taila.

c12.s4.29

⁵⁴ This was Fleet’s suggestion made with some hesitation at p. 427 of his *Dynasties*. At p. 379 of the same work he had proposed to identify this prince with Ayyapadeva, a general of Vīramahendra, who was killed in a war with Ereyappa. This is also a conjecture which would require further evidence before it can be accepted.

c12.s4.30

⁵⁵ See *ante*, p. 126, n. 49.

c12.s4.31

⁵⁶ *Yas’astilakachampū*, p. 419.

c12.s4.32

The struggle between Taila II and Karkka II was an intense one; for, the Managoli inscription (57) admits that it was with an exceedingly great effort that Taila acquired the sovereignty of the land. Karkka was supported by two of his Rāṣṭrakūṭa kinsmen, who were his generals, and who are described in the records of the conquering dynasty (58) as cruel, insolent and overbearing, and are compared to the moving feet of Kali incarnate. These two generals were killed in battle; but the fate of Karkka himself is not known with certainty. If he also were killed in the war, there is no reason why the Cālukya records should have kept silent over that incident. It would seem that he managed to fly to the south; two inscriptions from Sorab Taluka, Nos. 476 and 479, dated about 991 A.D., mention Mahārājādhirāja Parameśvara Paramabhaṭṭāraka Śrī-Kakkaladevas as the lord of the world. It is not unlikely that this Kakkala may have been the same as Karkka II, who may have managed to hold some local sway in the south of his empire for a few years, and may have been presumptuous enough to use his former imperial titles, even when he was the ruler of a petty state.

c12.s4.33

The main task of Taila II was accomplished after the defeat of Karkka II; he had, however, to fight with a number of other Rāṣṭrakūṭa claimants for the vacant throne for some time. The powerful Ganga feudatory, Noḷambāntaka Mārasimha, espoused the cause of Indra IV, a grandson of Kṛṣṇa III and the son of his own sister. He crowned him king (59) but his protégé, who was perhaps too young and inexperienced, could not maintain his own. His epitaph at Sravana Belgola (60) no doubt describes him as 'hero among brave men', 'the bravest of the brave', 'a marvel among those who take by force (the glory of the enemies)'; but these are all conventional adjectives.

c12.s4.34

⁵⁷ E. I., V, p. 20.

c12.s4.35

⁵⁸ Kauthem plates, E. I., XII, p. 152.

c12.s4.36

⁵⁹ Rice, Inscriptions from Sravana Belgola No. 59, (second edition).

c12.s4.37

⁶⁰ Ibid No. 57.

c12.s4.38

A *virgal* from Dasarhalli in Bangalore district (61) refers to Indra as the ruler of the place. If we assume with Rice that the probable date of this record, which is not dated, is about 980 A.D., then it will follow that Indra continued to hold some authority for a couple of years. But the effort to reinstate Indra IV soon failed; his maternal uncle Mārasimha died by the Sallekhanā vow before August 975 A.D.; and we find Indra IV doing the same on the 20th March 982 A.D.

c12.s4.39

When it became clear that Indra IV could not maintain his own against Taila II, Pāñchāladeva, the successor of Mārasimha, set himself up as emperor in opposition to Taila. His Mulgund inscription, (62) dated February 975 A.D., claims that he was governing, without any disorder, his kingdom which was bounded by the eastern, western, and southern ocean and by the great river (*i. e.* the Krishna) on the north. This is an obviously exaggerated statement, but it shows that he was sufficiently powerful. The epithet Chālukya-Pāñchānana given to him in this record further shows that he was fighting against Taila II. The expedition against him was led by Nāgadeva, a general of Taila. The battle between the two was a sanguinary one, and the Chālukya forces had actually begun to flee away from the battle when the situation was saved by Bhūteyadeva, who made a counter-attack wherein he decapitated Pāñchāladeva. For this exploit Taila II conferred upon him the title of Āhavamalla and made him a Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara. (63) The overthrow of Pāñchāladeva must be placed before 977 A.D.; for in that year his successor Rāchamalla II was already upon the Ganga throne. (64)

c12.s4.40

Taila II was thus able to retain the throne against all the claimants that arose to fight for it after the overthrow of Karka II. It must have required some time for him to compel all the Rāṣṭrakūṭa feudatories to recognize his overlordship. Sāntivarman, the Raṭṭa chieftain of Saundatti, is seen ignoring his sovereignty in 980 A.D.; his successors, however, are all of them seen professing allegiance to the new imperial house. The Silāhāras were deeply attached to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa house as would appear from the mention in their records of their Rāṣṭrakūṭa overlords even when they had been overthrown long ago. They also were compelled by Taila to transfer their allegiance to his family. The Yādava king Vaḍḍiga became a zealous supporter of Taila and participated in his wars against the Paramāra king Muñja. It is needless for the historian of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas to follow further the career of Taila II.

c12.s4.41

⁶¹ E. C., XI, Bangalore No. 37.

c12.s4.42

⁶² E. I., VI, p. 260.

c12.s4.43

⁶³ Torgala inscription, I. A., XII, p. 98.

c12.s4.44

⁶⁴ Peggu-ur inscription, I. A., VI, p. 102.

Linked texts (10)