The Rashtrakutas and their Times c7.s1.69

c7.s1.69

The Naravana plates of Vikramāditya II, dated Saka 664, (January 743 A.D.)²⁶ state that the village Naravana in Chiplun taluka of Ratnāgiri district was given to certain Brāhmanas by that Chālukya king at the request of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govindarāja, son of Śivarāja. The charter was issued when the king was encamped at Ādityavāṭika or modern Aitavade in Satara district. It is not possible to connect this Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govindarāja either with the main line or with the ancestors of Karka II of the Antroli-Chharoli record. He cannot be Govinda of the main line, for the latter was great-grand-father of Dantidurga and he could not have been possibly alive in 743 A.D., when the Naravana plates were issued. Nor can we identify him with Govinda; the father of Karka II of the Antroli-Chharoli record. It is true that no chronological difficulty arises in connection with this identification; for the known date of Karka II, viz. 757 A.D., fits in well with the known date of Govinda of the Naravana plates, viz. 743 A.D. The father of Govindarāja may have been an officer under Vikramāditya II in northern Konkan and his son may have carved out a principality in southern Gujrat at the downfall of the Chālukyas. There is, however, an almost fatal objection to this view; the father of Govindarāja of the Naravana plates is Śivarāja, whereas that of Govindarāja of the Antroli-Chharoli record is Dhruvarāja. There is no evidence so far forthcoming to indicate that either Dhruvarāja or Śivarāja was ever used as a biruda by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. It may be also pointed out that Govindarāja of the Antroli-Chharoli record was using feudatory titles, whereas Govindarāja of the Naravana plates has not even the title of a Sāmanta. The latter was probably a mere district officer ruling over some portions, either of Satara or of Ratnagiri district. It is, therefore, very likely that he was in no way connected with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family that later ousted the Chālukyas.