The Rashtrakutas and their Times c12.s4: Karka II

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c12.s4

Language: English

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

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.

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c12.s4: Karka II

Karka II

Linked texts (5)