Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c12.s2: Krishna III

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c12.s2

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (4)