Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c9: Chapter III. The Empire at its Zenith

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter III. The Empire at its Zenith

Govinda II

c9.s1.1

Kṛṣṇa I was succeeded by his eldest son Govinda Prabhūtavarṣa Vikramāvaloka soon after 772 ¹ A.D. He had been selected by his father as his successor and was annointed as yuvarāja some time between 770 and 772(2) A.D. He had already distinguished himself on the battlefield by defeating Viṣṇu-vardhana IV of Vengi.(3) He appears to have been a great cavalry leader, for the Kadba plates issued by Govinda III, a son of Dhruva I who had deposed him, mention how Govinda II used to win victory by the sole help of his favourite horse.

c9.s1.2

¹ Fleet's a view that Govinda II did not succeed at all to the throne cannot be maintained any longer. The expression 'ज्येष्ठोल्लंघन' can support the theories both of dethronement and supercession; for the root 'उल्लंघ्' means to jump over as well as to set aside or transgress. Baroda plates of Karka Suvarṇavarṣa dated 881-2 A.D., Kapadwanj grant of Krishna II, dated 910-11 A.D., and Begumra plates of Indra III, dated 914-5 A.D., no doubt omit the name of Govinda II from the genealogy; but this was because [P. T. O.

c9.s1.3

Daulatabad plates describe how Govinda II relieved Govardhana and despoiled a king named Pārijāta(4). But at present we neither know who this king Pārijāta was, nor why it was necessary to relieve Govardhana. Since Govardhana is

c9.s1.4

*Continued from last page* he was a collateral member. It may be pointed that the first two of the above-mentioned records omit the name of Dantidurga as well. Deoli and Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III mention the name of Jagattunga as a prince who did not ascend the throne; but they make no such statement about Govinda II. Govinda III was the son of Dhruva I who had deposed Govinda II, and still his earliest record—the Paithan plates of 794 A.D.—describe how Govinda II appeared under the white imperial umbrella. Another record of his, the Kadba plates of 814 A.D., actually describes the coronation of Govinda II. Daulatabad plates of 793-4 A.D., issued in the reign of Dhruva himself, describe how Govinda had to be deposed by Dhruva in the interest of the dynasty, as he had entrusted the administration to some strangers and was being deserted by the feudatories. There can, therefore, be no doubt that Govinda II did actually rule, although it may be only for a short time. This conclusion is supported by the Chalkeri record No. 34 ( E. C. XI ) which uses the expression 'Prithvirajyam-geyye' 'ruling over the earth' with reference to जगत्तुंग-प्रभूतवर्षप्रतापवलोक, son of Akālavarsha. Cf. अकाल ..पृथिवीवल्लभ...सवरस्य पुत्रेण. Prabhūtavarsha was a biruda of Govinda III as well, but he cannot be the king here referred to, for he was not the son of Akālavarsha but of Dhārāvarsha. The title 'प्रतापवलोक' is also a variation of the title 'विक्रमावलोक' which we find him using in his Alas plates. ( E. I., VI, pp. 208 ff. )

c9.s1.5

2. The Talegaon plates of 770 refer to him as simple Govindarāja, while the Alas plates of 772 describe him as Yuvarāja.

c9.s1.6

³ Alas plates, E. I., VI, pp. 208 ff.

c9.s1.7

situated in Nasik district, it is probable that its relief may refer to a temporary victory of Govinda over Dhruva, his rebellious brother, who, we know from the Dhulia(5) and Pimperi(6) plates, was ruling over Nasik and Khandesh as the governor under his elder brother.

c9.s1.8

Soon after his accession Govinda abandoned himself to a life of pleasure and vice(7). This must have made his administration unpopular and inefficient. Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III(8) state that Govinda practically entrusted the whole administration to Dhruva, as his mind was engrossed with the enjoyment of pleasures. This must have given Dhruva a golden opportunity to usurp the throne for himself. He proceeded cautiously; we find him sometimes issuing grants under his own authority, sometimes we notice him recognising Govinda as the de jure sovereign, but nevertheless issuing the land grant on his sole responsibility(9). It seems that Govinda soon realised what his brother was aiming at; he immediately removed him from the administration and entrusted it to some stranger. Feudatories, realising the internal dissensions, became lukewarm in their loyalty. This supplied Dhruva with a sufficient excuse to revolt openly against his brother; declaring that there was the danger of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family itself being ousted from the throne, he proceeded to fight with his brother, not so much to gain the throne for himself, as to retain it for the Rāṣṭrakūṭas (10). He first tried to induce Govinda to abdicate, which he naturally refused to do. Govinda tried his best to put down the rising of his brother; he sought and obtained help from the rulers of Kanchi, Gangawadi, Vengi, (11) and Malva. Dhruva, however, succeeded in defeating the confederacy and winning the throne for himself. This event probably took place in c. 780 A.D. (12)

c9.s1.9

⁵ E. I., VIII, pp. 182 ff.

c9.s1.10

⁶ E. I., X, pp. 81 ff.

c9.s1.11

⁷ See Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III, E. I., IV, pp. 278 ff. and the Kharda plates of Karka, I. A., XII, pp. 263 ff.

c9.s1.12

⁸ E. I., IV, pp. 278 ff.

c9.s1.13

⁹ In the Pimperi grant issued in 775 A.D., Dhruva altogether ignores his elder brother Govinda, who was the reigning sovereign; in the Dhulia plates of 779 A.D., (E. I., VIII, pp. 81 ff.), we find that Govinda II is mentioned as the ruling emperor, but the grantor Karka makes the grant with the sanction, not of Govinda, the emperor, but of his own father Dhruva. October 775 A.D. Kṛṣṇa I was still on the throne in June 772 A.D. It would be difficult to imagine that in the short space of about 3 years all the following events took place :-accession of Govinda II, his misrule, his entrusting the administration, first to Dhruva, and then to some strangers when the former showed disloyalty, Dhruva's effort to induce Govinda to abdicate, the latter's successful attempt in securing for himself the help of the hereditary enemies of his house, and the defeat of this big confederacy by Dhruva. As both the Pimperi and the Dhulia plates are genuine, the above reconstruction of history, here proposed for the first time, seems to be the only way out of the difficulty, created by the overlapping dates of these documents.

c9.s1.14

10. Cf.

c9.s1.15

तस्यानुजा निरुपमस्तमुदीर्णमीक्ष्य ।
त्यक्तं नृपैरपि नयेन विलुप्यमानम् ।
राज्यं बभार गुरुभक्तितोऽन्यसंस्थम् ।
मा भूत् किलान्यपरिच्युतिरत लक्ष्म्याः ॥

c9.s1.16

Daulatabad plates; E. I. IX, pp. 193 ff,

c9.s1.17

11. Pampa in his *Vikramārjunavijaya* states that Arikesarin I, the sixth ancestor of his patron Arikesarin II, (c. 925-950 A.D.) had penetrated into the kingdom of a king named Nirupamadeva, with the ministers of Bengerivishaya. (J. B. B. R. A. S. XIV. p. 19). Allowing 25 years for each generation, the time of Arikesarin I works out to be 775-800 A.D. It would, therefore, appear that this Chālukya feudatory had joined the party of Govinda against Dhruva. Can king Bengerivishaya possibly stand for the Vengi ruler?

c9.s1.18

12. The above account of the reign of Govinda is based on the assumption that his Dhulia plates are genuine. It must be admitted that this record, though issued in 779 A.D., appears to be some decades later than the Pimperi plates of 779 A.D. But it has been shown already [ante pp. 33-4] that the palæographical test cannot be regarded as the most decisive one, when the difference is only of a few decades. The important factor in connection with the genuineness of the Dhulia plates is the genuineness of their date. The plates were issued on the 10th day of the bright half of Pausha of S'aka 701. Prof. Kielhorn, after making the necessary calculations, wrote: ‘The date of this inscription for S'aka Samvat 701 expired regularly corresponds to the 22nd of December 779 A D. On this day Makara or Uttarāyaṇa Sankrānti took place at 4 h. 30 m., and the 10th *tithi* of the bright half of Pausha commenced 6 h. 44 m. after the mean sunrise.’ (E. I., VIII, p. 183, n. 2.). Astronomical calculations thus show that the Dhulia plates are genuine, or at least based on a genuine original document. The Pimpèri record is also genuine, but we cannot suppose that Govinda was expelled as early as Nothing is known about the scene of this war of succession, but since most of the allies of Govinda hailed from the south, it is not improbable that the decisive battles may have been fought in that direction. It is not known as to what fate overtook Govinda after his defeat; nothing is further heard of him. He may have died in battle or may have been imprisoned or killed by his brother Dhruva. It is not known whether Dhruva treated his elder brother with the same consideration with which Govinda III treated his own elder brother, Stambha, when the latter had risen in rebellion.

Dhruva Dhārāvarsha

c9.s2.1

After the overthrow of his elder brother above described, Dhruva ascended the throne. From the Dhulia plates of Govinda II, we find that Dhruva was still professing himself to be a subordinate of his elder brother in 779 A.D. In what year precisely he overthrew his brother and ascended the throne is not definitely known at present. From Jinasena's *Harivans'a*, we learn that in 783 A.D. king Śrīvallabha, son of Kṛṣṇa, was ruling the south. This statement, however, does not enable us to determine the date of the accession of Dhruva, for the description 'Śrīvallabha, son of Kṛṣṇa,' can suit Govinda II as well as Dhruva. It is true that the Paithan plates of Govinda III issued soon after his accession, mention Srīvallabha as an epithet of Govinda II and Kalivallabha as that of Dhruva. But Srāvanbelgola Inscription No. 24, which is an almost contemporary document, describes the father of Stambha, *i. e.* Dhruva, as Srīvallabha.¹³ Another contemporary record from Matakeri in Mysore district¹⁴ refers to Dhārāvarsha Srīvallabha as the overlord of Kambarasa, proving thereby that Dhruva was known both by the epithets of Srīvallabha and Kalivallabha. Since Srīvallabha was thus the epithet of both Govinda II and his immediate successor Dhruva, Srīvallabha mentioned by Jinasena as ruling in 783 A.D. can be either Govinda or Dhruva. But since the latest known date of Govinda II is 779 A.D. which is supplied by the Dhulia plates discussed above, it may be reasonably assumed that Srīvallabha, who is mentioned by Jinasena as ruling over the south in 783 A.D. may have been Dhruva rather than Govinda II. For, if we place the usurpation subsequent even to 783 A.D., say in 784 or 785 A.D., Dhruva will have a short reign of about 8 years. His extensive conquests in the south and north, which will be soon described, will make it abundantly clear that they presupposed a somewhat longer reign.

c9.s2.2

¹³ E. C., I.

c9.s2.3

¹⁴ E. C., IV, p. 93.

c9.s2.4

At the time of his accession in c. 780 A.D. Dhruva was a mature man of about 50; for, when the Dhulia plates were issued in 779 A.D., his son was a grown-up man invested with the *Pañchamahās'abdas*, and taking an active part in the administration. Dhruva's age, however, had not quenched his military ambition as his *biruda* 'Kalivallabha', 'one who loves strife or war,' will show. After his accession Dhruva must have spent some time in consolidating his position by compelling the refractory feudatories, who were about to overthrow his brother's yoke,¹⁵ to recognise his sovereignty. Then he proceeded to punish those of his neighbours who had sided with his brother in the war of succession. We have seen already how the rulers of Talwad, Kanchi, Vengi, and Malva had championed the cause of his brother. It is precisely against these kings that we find the armies of Dhruva operating during the greater part of his reign.

c9.s2.5

¹⁵ See *ante*, p. 51 foot-note No. 10.

c9.s2.6

Dhruva first proceeded to punish his southern neighbours. The first blow was directed against the Ganga principality. The aged Ganga ruler Śrī-purusha Mutta-raśa who was defeated by his father Kṛṣṇa I, was now dead, and was succeeded by his son Sivamāra II. The Manne plates, (16) alleged to have been issued in 797 A.D., are no doubt spurious, but the statement made therein, that Sivamāra was interested in logic, dramaturgy and Pātañjala-Mahābhāshya may well have been founded on good tradition; it would show that he was more a scholar than an administrator. His authorship of a book on war-elephants did not prove to him of much avail against the elephant-phalanx of Dhruva, who managed to defeat and imprison him. The statement in the Rāshṭrakūṭa records that the Ganga ruler was imprisoned (17) is confirmed by some Ganga documents as well. The Manne grant, above referred to, states that Sivamāra was entangled on all sides in difficulties. The Gattiyadpur plates inform us (18) that Sivamāra put his younger brother Vijayāditya upon the throne who, like Bharata, knowing the earth to be his elder brother's wife, refrained from enjoying her. The simile makes it quite clear that Sivamāra was absent from the kingdom in the Rāshṭrakūṭa prison, and that his younger brother was trying to carry on the struggle against the invading forces in the absence of the de jure ruler. Dhruva, however, was completely successful in his expedition; he appointed his eldest son Stambha to govern the newly conquered province.

c9.s2.7

¹⁶ E. C., XI, p. 41. 17 See Wani-Dindori plates, 11, 9—10; I.A., XI, p. 157. 18 E. C., XII, Nanjangad No, 129.

c9.s2.8

After the annexation of the Ganga principality, Dhruva attacked the Pallava ruler and besieged his capital Kanchi. A verse in the Radhanpur plates informs us that the Pallava ruler was defeated and compelled to surrender a large number of war-elephants to the victor.

c9.s2.9

After punishing his southern neighbours for siding with his elder brother, Dhruva turned his attention to Northern India. As Dharmapāla of Bengal is known to have married a Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess, Raṇṇādevī, daughter of king Parabala, ¹⁹ it was once believed that Dhruva had undertaken the northern expedition as an ally of Dharmapāla against their common enemy Vatsarāja, the Gurjara-Pratīhāra ruler. This view is, however, no longer tenable as the v. 14 ²⁰ of the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa I, recently published, distinctly says that Dhruva fought also against the Gauda ruler in his northern expedition. The real motive of the northern campaign of Dhruva seems to have been to teach a lesson to Vatsarāja, ²¹ who had tried to espouse the cause of Govinda II.

c9.s2.10

19. The identity of this Rāṣṭrakūṭa prince is still uncertain. He cannot be Parabala of the Pathari pillar inscription, for the latter's date is 861 A.D. (E. I., IX, p. 248). The reign of Dharmapāla had ended about 50 years at least before that year, and therefore he could not have been Parabala's son-in-law. Fleet had proposed to identify him with Govinda III (*Dynasties*, p. 198), but this ruler is not known to have had this *biruda*.

c9.s2.11

20. Cf. गङ्गायमुनयोर्मध्ये राज्ञो गौडस्य नश्यतः । लक्ष्मीलीलारविन्दानि श्वेतच्छत्राणि योऽहरत् ॥

c9.s2.12

21. The statement of Jinasena पूर्वाम् श्रीमदवन्तिभूभृतिनृपे वत्सादिराजे......। has to be understood to mean that Vatsarāja was ruling at Avanti', especially since we know from the Sanjan plates that there was a Gurjara-Pratīhāra ruler at Avanti in the time of Dantidurga also. The Malava ruler, who helped Govinda II, must, therefore, have been this Vatsarāja or perhaps a local governor of his, and one of the reasons that induced Dhruva to undertake this expedition in the north must have been to punish the Gurjara-Pratīhāra ruler for his partisanship with Govinda II.

c9.s2.13

Later on Dhruva may have attacked Dharmapāla as well, as the latter may have tried to thwart his plans, regarding him as a possible rival in the overlordship of the north towards which he himself was aiming.

c9.s2.14

It is not necessary for us to enter into a detailed discussion of the very complicated history of northern India of this period. Only facts, relevant for our enquiry, need be referred to. The Gwalior inscription of Bhoja I²² of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra dynasty informs us that his great-grand-father Vatsarāja had wrested away the empire from the Bhaṇḍi family. Kanauj in our period was occupying the position of Pataliputra in an earlier age, and we know from the *Harshacharita* that Bhaṇḍi was a maternal-uncle of Harsha. Indrāyudha, who was at this time ruling over Kanauj, may probably have been a descendant of this maternal-uncle of Harsha, and it is possible that his family in that case may have been known as Bhaṇḍikula. The statement in the Gwalior inscription that Vatsarāja forcibly wrested the empire from Bhaṇḍikula may support the view that soon after 783 A.D., Vatsarāja attacked Kanauj and defeated its ruler Indrāyudha. Indrāyudha does not seem to have been immediately deposed; for some time he continued to occupy the imperial throne at Kanauj as a mere puppet in the hands of the conqueror. This must have roused the jealousy of Dharmapāla, who was also an aspirant for the overlordship of northern India. Dharmapāla decided to champion the cause of Chakrāyudha, who was probably a relative of Indrāyudha. The Bengal ruler, however, suffered a reverse in the beginning; for a verse²³ in the Waṇi-Diṇḍori plates states that Vatsarāja was elated by the easy victory that he had scored over the lord of the Gaudas. The Bengal ruler defeated by him could not have been Gopāla, for the latter is not known to have sent any expedition outside the province of Bengal. The Sanjan plates, on the other hand, show that the armies of Dharmapāla were operating in the Ganges-Jumna Doab in the course of his wars with the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.

c9.s2.15

²² A. S. R., 1903-4 p. 280.

c9.s2.16

²³ Cf. हेलास्वीकृतगौडराजकमलमतम्.....वत्सराजम्।

c9.s2.17

At the time of Dhruva's intervention in the northern Indian politics, Dharmapāla had again rallied up his forces and advanced into the Doab with a view to capture Kanauj. Dhruva must have first attacked Vatsarāja, his immediate neighbour, in c. 789 A.D. The latter was probably engaged in meeting the second invasion of Dharmapāla, and so Dhruva could get a decisive victory, capturing the two white umbrellas of the Bengal ruler which Vatsarāja had snatched away from him in a former battle. This defeat of Vatsarāja brought Dhruva into contact and conflict with Dharmapāla, who was already in the Doab. Each must have regarded the other as standing in the way of the realization of his imperial ambition and a conflict was inevitable. We have no details of the military operations, but the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarsha I, distinctly assert²⁴ that the defeat of the Gauda king took place in the Ganges-Jumna Doab. The statement in the Sanjan plates is confirmed by verse 22 of the Surat plates of Karka Suvarṇavarsha, which I am at present editing for the Epigraphia Indica, where Dhruva and God Śiva are both described as 'Gāṅgaughasantatinirodhavivṛddhakīrtiḥ.'24a There is a pun on the expression, and with reference to Dhruva, it can refer both to his imprisonment of the Ganga ruler, as well as to his campaign in Ganges valley. The term ogha is not very happy if taken in connection with the imprisonment of the Ganga ruler. It can be more appropriate with reference to the campaign in the Ganges valley, when the huge southern army, consisting of elephants, horses and soldiers may have, while encamped on the banks of the Ganges, appeared to be obstructing the flow of that river either while bathing in it or crossing it across.

c9.s2.18

²⁴ गङ्गायसुनयोमध्ये राज्ञो गौडस्य नश्यतः । लक्ष्मीलीलाविन्दानि श्वेतच्छत्राणि योऽहरत् ॥

c9.s2.19

24a Likely to be published in E. I., vol, XX or XXI.

c9.s2.20

And finally the verse:—

c9.s2.21

यो गङ्गायमुने तरङ्गसुभगेऽप्युल्लङ्घ्य परेभ्यः समम् ।
साक्षाच्चिह्ननिभेन चोत्तमपदं तत्प्राप्तवानीश्वरम् ॥

c9.s2.22

in the Baroda plates (25) of Karka Suvarṇavarsha has now to be interpreted as referring to Dhruva's occupation of the Ganges-Jumna Doab; the poet imagines that the acquisition of heaven by Dhruva, which is mentioned in the latter half of this verse, was due to his being in possession of the holy Jumna and the Ganges. Prinsep's view that this verse refers to Dhruva's drowning himself in the confluence of the Ganges and the Jumna (26) can no longer be accepted.

c9.s2.23

Dhruva's expedition in northern India was merely of the nature of a digvijaya. It probably brought him no substantial gain, apart from fame and booty, that might have been obtained. Boundaries of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire did not alter as a result of his successes against Vatsarāja and Dharmapāla. It does not seem that he was in a position to follow up his victories in the Doab by marching upon the capital of either of his opponents. He was far away from his base; and perhaps he was too old to press his armies on to Kanauj. It is also possible that he was anticipating some trouble about the succession after his death, and was, therefore, anxious to return to the south in order to abdicate in favour of his favourite son Govinda. Whatever the real causes, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa armies soon retired to the south, enhancing no doubt the military prestige of the empire, but adding very little to its area.

c9.s2.24

Dhruva died some time between April 793 and May 794 A.D. ²⁷ He was one of the ablest of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa rulers. During a short reign of about 13 years he not only reestablished the Rāṣṭrakūṭa ascendency in the south, which was seriously endangered by his predecessor's loose and vicious government, but made the Rāṣṭrakūṭas an *all-India* power. For the first time after the Andhra occupation of portions of Northern India, after a lapse of nearly nine centuries, a Deccanese force crossed the Vindhyas and entered into the very heart of *Madhyades'a*, defeating each of the two rival claimants for the imperial position in the North. His deposition of his elder brother is an unfortunate circumstance casting reflections upon his moral character; but if Govinda was really a weak and vicious ruler, which certainly seems to have been the case, there was more than ample political justification for the step taken by Dhruva. His northern campaigns no doubt did not result in the enlargement of the Empire in that direction, but in the south, after the imprisonment of the Ganga ruler, his dominions were annexed ²⁸ and the boundary of the Empire was pushed to the Kāverī.

c9.s2.25

²⁵ I. A., XII, pp. 157 ff.

c9.s2.26

²⁶ J. A. S. B., 1839, pp. 304 ff.

c9.s2.27

²⁷ Dhruva was living when the Daulatabad plates were issued in April 793 and dead when the Paithan plates were issued by his son in May, 794 A.D.

c9.s2.28

²⁸ From an inscription at Matakeri in Mysore district, we learn that Stambha was the governor of Gangawadi when Dhārāvarsha S'rīvallabha was ruling the earth. E. C., IV, p. 93.

Govinda III

c9.s3.1

Dhruva had a number of sons. The names of four of them are known,—Stambha Raṇāvaloka, (Kambarasa in Canarese), Karka Suvarṇavarsha, Govinda and Indra, and it is not unlikely that he may have had more. Stambha was a viceroy over the newly annexed province of Gangawadi, ²⁹ Karka Suvarṇavarsha was carrying on the administration of Khandesh, ³⁰ even before his father's accession; Govinda, who was selected by the father for succession and Indra, who was later put in the charge of southern Gujrat by Govinda, were probably co-operating with their father in the military expeditions. All these sons were grown up, able, and ambitious, and the old emperor must have realised that if a war of succession was to be avoided, some one among them must be selected for the throne and formally anointed as the heir-apparent. His choice fell upon Govinda, because he was the ablest and the worthiest among them, ³¹ well competent to protect the wide empire that he was to inherit. The selection was followed by a formal coronation, and Govinda was invested with a *kaṇṭhikā* or necklace which was the insignia of the heir-apparent.

c9.s3.2

²⁹ E. C., IV, p. 93.

c9.s3.3

³⁰ Dhulia plates of Govinda II, E. I., VIII, pp. 182 ff.

c9.s3.4

³¹ यस्याकारमनुषं त्रिभुवनव्याप्तिक्षोचितम्ः ॥ कृष्णस्येव निरीक्ष्य यच्छति पितन्येकाधिपत्यं भुवः । आस्तां तात...इति पितरं युक्तं वचो योऽभ्यधात् ॥ Radhanpur plates, E. I., IV, pp. 242 ff.

c9.s3.5

But the old emperor apprehended trouble in spite of the Yuvarāja coronation of his son Govinda, and proposed to abdicate in favour of the heir-apparent, as the verse quoted in the last footnote would show. Govinda, however, opposed this proposal. It is difficult at present to determine whether the proposed abdication did actually take place. The Paithan plates definitely state that Govinda obtained the kingdom from his father at a formal coronation ³² and their testimony is supported by v. 30 of the Surat plates of Karka, which states that Govinda obtained not Yuvarājaship but emperorship from his father. Cf.

c9.s3.6

³² यश्च प्रभु...पितुस्सकाशात् मूर्धाभिषिक्तृपसम्मतमाशुराज्यम् आसेदिवान्...॥

c9.s3.7

राज्याभिषेककलशैर्भिषिच्य दत्ताम् ।
राजाधिराजपरमेश्वरतां स्वपित्र ॥

c9.s3.8

It is possible that the expressions ‘Rājyābhishekasamaya’ and ‘Rājyābhishekakalaśa’ may have been used rather loosely in these records with reference to Yuvarāja coronation.

c9.s3.9

But it is equally probable that realising that installation as a Yuvaraja was no guarantee against a war of succession, as was shown by his own overthrow of his elder brother, Dhruva may have actually abdicated in favour of Govinda in spite of the filial protests of the latter. Govinda's actual installation as an emperor, he may have thought, may minimise the prospects of his succession being opposed after his death. In the present state of knowledge, therefore, it is difficult to decide whether Dhruva had actually abdicated towards the end of his career; it may, however, be safely assumed that Govinda was the de facto ruler in full charge of the administration when his father died.

c9.s3.10

The accession of Govinda III took place peacefully, for the Paithan plates, issued within less than a year of the death of Dhruva, do not refer to any war of succession. But Stambha, who was an elder brother of Govinda, was smarting under the humiliation of his supercession, and soon formed a formidable confederacy of twelve kings to gain the throne to which he was legally entitled. The names of the allies of Stambha are not known, but we cannot be far wrong in assuming that they must have been some of the neighbouring and feudatory rulers (33) who must have been smarting under the treatment they had received from the dead emperor. The Sanjan plates inform us that a number of high officers of the state also joined the cause of Stambha.

c9.s3.11

33. Such was the case with the Ganga ruler whom Govinda had released, probably with the intention of creating a rival against his brother, who was governing Gangawadi, the patrimony of the released king. S'ivamāra Muttarasa, the Ganga ruler, however, joined Stambha who, anticipating the imperial crown, may have promised Gangawadi to its legitimate ruler in order to get his assistance in the fight with Govinda. Fleet's suggestion that the glorious Kaṭṭiyira who is mentioned as reigning over the earth, while Dosirāja was governing Vanavasi 12000, may have been an ally of Stambha, would be plausible only if we assume that this Dosirāja was different from the Dosirāja who was governing portions of Karnatak under Kīrtivarman in 757 A.D. (E. I., VI, pp. 253 ff.)

c9.s3.12

Govinda had anticipated the storm and was well prepared to meet it. By following a policy of conciliation he had endeared himself to a number of his feudatories, (34) who now stood by his side. His brother, Indra, helped him zealously, and it was probably in recognition of his services on this occasion, that he was appointed to the Gujrat viceroyalty. Besides, Govinda was himself a great soldier and skilful general. He, therefore, soon defeated Stambha and his twelve allies and made his position secure. A verse in the Sanjan plates claims (35) that Govinda treated his enemies leniently after the revolt was put down. Such really was the case, for the ring-leader of the confederacy, Stambha, was reinstated by Govinda in his Ganga governorship where he continued to govern at least till 802 A.D. (36)

c9.s3.13

Stambha was governing Gangawadi during his father's life-time, and it is therefore very likely that the centre of campaign against him must have been south Karnatak. Govinda's expedition against the Ganga ruler must have been undertaken immediately thereafter. Seeing a war of succession impending, Muttarasa, the Ganga ruler, (c. 765 - c. 805 A.D.) assumed imperial titles soon after his release from the Rāṣṭrakūṭa captivity; (37) he may have very probably joined the side of Stambha, who may have promised to restore his kingdom to him when he would become the Emperor. We can, therefore, well understand why the Radhanpur plates call him haughty, (37) and the Sanjan plates ungrateful. (38) Govinda defeated him easily, for the Radhanpur plates observe that a mere frown was sufficient for the purpose. The defeated ruler was again imprisoned in c. 798 A.D., and Gangawadi was again annexed to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire. Stambha was reappointed to the Ganga viceroyalty which he continued to rule down to 802 A.D. at least.³⁹ Later on he was succeeded by Chākirāja, sometime before the issue of the Kadba plates in 814 A.D. Grown wiser by the fate of Ganga ruler, Charuponnera of Nolambawadi recognised the suzerainty of Govinda.⁴⁰

c9.s3.14

³⁴ Sanjan plates of Amoghavarsha, v. 17, E. I., XVIII, p. 244.

c9.s3.15

³⁵ Ibid, v. 18.

c9.s3.16

³⁶ See note No. 39 below.

c9.s3.17

³⁷ In his earlier inscriptions, as Fleet has pointed out, his title is simple Maharaja whereas, in his Holawadi record he assumes the imperial title Konguṇi Rājādhirāja Parames'vara S'rīpurusha E. I., V., pp. 156-158 ff.

c9.s3.18

³⁷ Cf. दर्पविसरायः प्रातिकूल्ये स्थितः। E.I., VI, p. 242.

c9.s3.19

³⁸ Cf. उपगताविकृतिः कृतघ्नगङ्गः ॥ v.

c9.s3.20

¹⁸ E.I. XVIII p. 244.

c9.s3.21

³⁹ A copper-plate grant from Manne, dated 802 A.D., mentions Ranāvaloka S'aucha Kambhadeva as the elder brother of Pṛthīvivallabha Prābhūtarasa Govindarājadeva who meditated on the feet of Dhāraravar-shadeva. This grant was made by Stambha with the permission of Govinda, a fact which clearly shows that Stambha had been pardoned by Govinda and reinstated in the Ganga viceroyalty after the imprisonment of the Ganga ruler. E. C. IX, Nelamangal No. 61.

c9.s3.22

⁴⁰ Some records from Chitaldurga district show that Charuponnera of Nolawbalge was a feudatory of जगत्तुंग-प्रभूतवर्ष-गोविन्द. This Govinda is obviously Govinda III. E. C., XI, Nos. 33-34.

c9.s3.23

Govinda next turned his arms to Kanchi. That kingdom had been already once attacked by his father, but Govinda found it necessary to invade it once more, probably because its ruler had sided with Stambha. The Kanchi ruler was defeated sometime before 803 A.D.; for we learn from the British Museum plates of Govinda III,⁴¹ that at the time when they were issued in 804 A.D., Govinda was encamped at Rameśvara Tīrtha, while returning from his victorious expedition against the Pallava king. Govinda's victory was not decisive, for towards the end of his reign, he had to attack the Pallavas once more.

c9.s3.24

⁴¹ I. A., XI, p. 126.

c9.s3.25

Freed from the worries in the south, Govinda turned his attention to the east. Viṣṇuvardhana IV and Vijayāditya Narendrarāja were his contemporaries, but since we have to place the expedition against Vengi later than 804 A.D., (42) his Chālukya opponent was very probably Vijayāditya, who is known to have ruled from c. 799 to 843 A.D. Govinda attacked him probably because of the old feud between the two houses. He was a new ruler and therefore a good target for an aggressive conqueror. The Vengi ruler was defeated; a verse in the Radhanpur plates states that he was compelled to prepare a compound for the conqueror's stables, and another in the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarsha I describes the humiliation to which he was subjected, when compelled to cleanse the floor of Govinda's camp. The war which broke out at this time between the two states, lingered for twelve years in which as many as 108 battles are said to have been fought; (43) during the lifetime of Govinda the victory seems to have been with the Rāshṭrakūṭa forces, but things changed with the accession of the boy emperor Amoghavarsha.

c9.s3.26

After reducing to subjection almost all the important kings to the south of the Narmada, Govinda organised an expedition into northern India. Many new developments had taken place there since his father's retirement to the south. Taking advantage of the crushing defeat inflicted upon Vatsarāja by Dhruva, and of the preoccupation of Govinda III in the south, Dharmapāla had captured Kanauj and put his own nominee Chakrāyudha on its throne with the assent, genuine or forced, of most of the kings of Madhyadeśa and the Punjab. (44) But Dharmapāla did not enjoy his

c9.s3.27

42. Govinda's armies were fighting against the southern powers down to 804 A.D.; and the defeat of the Vengi ruler is first mentioned in the Radhanpur grant of 809 A.D.
43. See Idara grant of Ammaraja I, I. A., XIII, pp. 56 ff.
44. जितेन्द्रराजप्रभृतीन्रातीन् । उपाजिता येन महोदयश्रीः ॥ दत्ता पुनस्सा . . . . . चक्रायुधायनतिथामनाय ॥ Bhagalpur grant. भोजैर्मत्स्यैस्समैः कुरुयद्यवनावन्तिगान्धारभूपैः । . . . . . साधु संगीयमाणः ॥ Khalimpur grant of Dharmapala, E. I., VI, pp. 248 ff.

c9.s3.28

imperial supremacy in northern India for a long time. Nāgabhaṭa II, who had succeeded Vatsarāja on the Pratihāra throne, soon recovered his position. He formed an alliance, as Dr. R. C. Majumdar has pointed out, with the Mahomedans of Sindh, the Chalukyas of Vengi, and the local rulers in eastern and western C. P., and attacked Dharmapāla and Chakrāyudha.(45) His attack was successful and both Dharmapāla and Chakrāyudha were defeated.(46) He then subjugated the territory round Dholpur and led an expedition to the west defeating the chiefs in Malva and northern Gujrat.(47) Nāgabhaṭa II was thus at the height of his glory and power, when Govinda III decided to attack him sometime in 806 or 807 A.D.

c9.s3.29

The northern expedition of Govinda was boldly planned and skilfully executed. He entrusted a number of his generals with the work of subduing or keeping in check the rulers of Vengi, Orissa, Kosala and Malva, his brother Indra was sent to attack the Gurjara-Pratihāras in their home province, and then he himself proceeded in the direction of the Doab and Kanauj to attack Nāgabhaṭa himself(48) sometime in 806 or 807 A.D.(49)

c9.s3.30

⁴⁵ E. I., XVIII, pp. 87 ff.
46. जित्वा पराश्रयकृतस्फुटनीचभावम् । चक्रायुधं विनयनमवपुर्व्यराजत् ॥ निर्जित्य वङ्गपतिमाविरभूद्विस्वान् । Gwalior inscription of Bhoja, A. S. R., 1903-4.

c9.s3.31

⁴⁷ Ibid, v. 8.

c9.s3.32

⁴⁸ The Sanjan plates actually mention the name of the Gurjara-Pratihāra ruler as Nāgabhaṭa (v. 22). Before the publication of this record the name of the Gurjara opponent had to be inferred, since it was given in no Rāṣṭrakūṭa record. Buhler had proposed to identify him with some member of the Chavoṭaka house. (I. A., XII. p. 158,)

c9.s3.33

⁴⁹ Since the Gurjara defeat is mentioned in the Radhanpur plates issued in August 809 A.D., and since Govinda was just completing his expedition against the Kanchi ruler in 804 A.D. the above conclusion about the date of this expedition will appear as very probable, when it is also remembered that the Vengi expedition was undertaken prior to the advance to the north.

c9.s3.34

Apart from a few local reverses, (50) success seems to have attended Govinda's arms everywhere. The army under the Gujrat viceroy Indra was ultimately victorious; the Baroda plates of his son Karka, issued in 811-2 A.D., state that Indra was able to rout out single-handed the lord of the Gurjars. The expeditions against the central Indian rulers were equally successful. (51) After defeating the ruler of Chitrakūṭa Govinda himself marched into the Doab. He defeated Nāgabhaṭa II and apparently pressed right up to the Himalayan ranges. (52) Nāgabhaṭa's defeat was fairly decisive; he had to retire to the deserts of Rajputana. Chakrāyudha was a mere puppet and offered voluntary submission. Dharmapāla also is said to have done the same, (53) probably because he was shrewd enough to realise that it was politically wise to humour Govinda III, who had indirectly obliged him by overthrowing his greatest enemy, Nāgabhaṭa II. Govinda, he knew, would soon retire to the south, leaving him free to exploit the situation created by the defeat of the Gurjara-Pratihāra ruler.

c9.s3.35

50. Bāhukadhavala, a contemporary and feudatory of Nāgabhaṭa II in Kathiawar, is said to have defeated a Karnataka army in a grant of his grandson Balavarman (E. I., IX, pp. 1 ff). This victory may have been a local success against the army of Indra, the Gujrat viceroy.

c9.s3.36

51. The defeat of Kosala king, Chandragupta, is specifically mentioned in the v. 22 of the Sanjan record; v. 24 makes the general statement that all the central Indian kings were reduced to submission by the generals of Govinda. E. I., XVIII p. 245.

c9.s3.37

52. V. 23 of the Sanjan record refers to the resounding of the Himalayan caves by the noise made at the time of the bath of the army of Govinda in the Ganges. It is possible, however, that this resounding of the Himalayan caves may be merely poetic, and the armies of Govinda may not have marched much beyond the Ganges-Jumna Doab. The Rāshṭrakūṭa records do not claim the conquest of Kanauj at this time; and since Kanauj was not conquered, it is not likely that Govinda could have gone in the close vicinity of the Himalayas.

c9.s3.38

⁵³ स्वयमेवोपगतौ च यस्य महतस्तौ धर्मचक्रायुधौ। Sanjan plates, ibid.

c9.s3.39

Govinda's expedition in northern India was merely of the nature of a *digvijaya*. He compelled both Nāgabhaṭa II and Dharmapāla, each of whom was seeking to make the titular king Chakrāyudha a puppet in his own hands, to recognize his suzerainty. He did not annex any portions of their normal kingdoms, though he must have exacted heavy tributes from them. The same was the case with the central Indian rulers, perhaps with the exception of Malva. We do not know who the Malva ruler was, who in the Wani-Dindori⁵⁴ plates is described as submitting to Govinda. He may possibly have been a feudatory governor of Nāgabhaṭa II, appointed to govern Malva when his master was preoccupied with the conquest of Kanauj. The statement in Baroda plates of Karka, issued in 812 A.D., that Karka was made a door-bolt to protect Malva against the Gurjara attack, suggests that Malva was almost assimilated to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa dominions as a result of this expedition.

c9.s3.40

⁵⁴ I. A., XII, p. 157.

c9.s3.41

Govinda then marched westward and was welcomed by king Śarva at his capital Śribhavana or modern Sarbhon in Bharoch⁵⁵ district with the presents of the choicest heir-looms.

c9.s3.42

⁵⁵ An inscription hailing from Gudigeri in Dharwar district (E. I., VI, p. 257) which, on palæographical grounds can be assigned to c. 800 A.D., refers to a glorious mahārāja, Mārāssaḷba by name, as ruling over that district, Fleet had opined (*Ibid*) that this ruler may be the same as king Māraś'arva, who, in the Rādhanpur plates, is described as submitting to Govinda at the mere news of his approach to the Vindhya regions. This view is, however, untenable. Māraś'arva was a petty ruler ruling at Sarbhon in Bharoch district as will become evident from the following reasons :—

c9.s3.43

(i) The statement in the Wani-Dindori plates, that Māraś'arva hastened to present his heir-looms to Govinda, as soon as his spies reported to him the arrival of the conqueror in the vicinity of the Vindhyan ranges, makes it abundantly clear that his dominion must have been in the vicinity of that mountain; if he were really ruling in Dharwar district, the advent of Govinda in the Vindhyan regions would not have frightened him.

c9.s3.44

Govinda spent the major part of the rainy season of 808 A.D. at his capital, maturing the plans of the campaigns against the kings of the south, who had shown signs of insubordination during his absence in northern India and formed a confederacy against him.(56) It was during his stay at Sarbhon that Amoghavarsha was born in the monsoon of 808 A.D.(57)

c9.s3.45

(ii) The reference to the presentation of the choicest heir-looms by Māras'arva would show that before that time, he was an independent ruler. But Dharwar was in the very heart of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire under the direct imperial administration; no independent king could have survived there down to c. 808 A.D. Mārassalba of the Gudigeri record must have been a third-rate feudatory,—supposing that he belonged to this period—; for an inscription from the district of Shimoga shows that Rājdaityarasa was Govinda's governor over Banavāsī 12000, and that Chitravāhana was ruling over Alurakhed 6000 under him at this time. [ See E. C., VIII, Sorab Nos. 10 and 22 ].

c9.s3.46

(iii) At the beginning of the monsoon of 808 A.D. Govinda's army had just returned after prolonged operations in Northern and Central India, and it is therefore very unlikely that he would have subjected it to a long march to the Tungabhadra. The fact that the Rādhanpur plates were issued from Mayūrakhindī in Nasik district in July 808 A.D. would also show that Govinda did not proceed to the south, immediately after his northern campaign but spent the rainy season in the north. S'rībhavana ought to be, therefore, identified with Sarbhon in Bharoch district, and not with Shiggaon, the headquarters of Bankapur Taluka in Dharwar district, about 30 miles north of the Tungabhadra, as Fleet has suggested. There is also some phonetic difficulty in identifying Shiggaon with S'rībhavan. The same difficulty is encountered in considering the view of Wathen that S'rībhavana, where Govinda was encamped, is modern Cowldurg in Mysore.

c9.s3.47

(iv) The Sanjān plates of Amoghavarsha I, recently published, show conclusively that S'rībhavana is Sarbhon in Bharoch district. They describe the capital of Māras'arva, as situated in the Narmadā valley at the foot of the Vindhyas (v. 25). This description applies very accurately to Sarbhon in Bharoch district, and not to Shiggaon in Dharwar district. It need not be added that king S'arva of the Sanjān record is the same as king Māras'arva of the Rādhanpur plates.

c9.s3.48

⁵⁶ Sanjān plates of Amoghavarsha, v. 30 E, I., XVIII, p. 246.

c9.s3.49

From Sribhavana or Sarbhon he proceeded to the south to teach a lesson to the Dravidian kings who had formed an alliance against him. The members of this confederacy were the rulers of Gangawādi, Kerala, Pāṇḍya, Chola and Kāñchī kingdoms. These were all of them defeated.(58) Several battalions of the Ganga army, or perhaps some members of the royal family,(59) were put to the sword, Kāñchī was once more occupied, and the Chola and Pāṇḍya kingdoms were overrun. The fate of these states frightened the king of Ceylon who hurried to offer submission, sending his own statue and that of his minister to Govinda, while the latter was encamped at Kāñchī.(60) Govinda sent them on to Mālkhed to be put in front of a Śiva temple as columns of victory.

c9.s3.50

The southern campaign, which was undertaken subsequent to the monsoons of 808 A.D., must have required at least two years and may have terminated sometime in 810 or 811 A.D. Govinda probably undertook no more expeditions; he was getting old, his end was approaching, and towards the close of his reign he must have been occupied in making some arrangements to ensure the succession of his only son, Amoghavarsha, who was born as late as in 808 A.D. Govinda was alive on the 4th of December 813 A.D. when the Torkhede plates(61) were issued by him. His death took place soon thereafter, for there is evidence to show that Amoghavarsha ascended the throne sometime in the next year.

c9.s3.51

58. *Ibid*, v. 30
59. *Ibid*, v. 33.
60. *Ibid*, v. 34, Cf :— लङ्कातः किल तत्प्रभुप्रतिकृती काञ्चीमुपेतौ ततः । कीर्तिस्तंभनिभौ शिवायतनके येनेह संस्थापितौ ॥

c9.s3.52

It is clear from this verse that the statues were transported from Kanchi to ‘here’ i e, Mālkhed from where the plates were issued. It is, besides, very unlikely that Govinda would have ever thought of erecting these *Kīrtistambhas* at Kāñchī which he had only temporarily occupied.

c9.s3.53

Govinda was, perhaps, the ablest of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa emperors. He not only put down the confederacy that was formed to oppose his accession but also enhanced the prestige of his kingdom and added to its area. Mālva in the north and Gangawadi in the south were annexed to the empire. Both Nāgabhaṭa and Dharmapāla, who were aspiring to the imperial position in the north, were overthrown by him. The victorious march of his armies had literally embraced all the territory between the Himālayas and Cape Camorin. Even the king of Ceylon was terrified into submission. Never again did the prestige of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas reach this high level. Indra III, no doubt, conquered Kanauj but he could not proceed beyond the North Pennar in the south. Kṛṣṇa III had indeed conquered all the states defeated by Govinda III in the south but could not enter the Madhyadeśa and defeat the principal kings in north India. The statement of the Wani-Dindori plates that with the advent of Govinda III the Rāṣṭrakūṭa dynasty became invincible to its enemies is no boast of a court panegyrist but a plain statement of fact.

c9.s3.54

The success of Govinda was due to his bravery, statesmanship and power of organisation. He is compared to Pārtha in the Baroda plates of his nephew Karka, (62) and the Naosari plates (63) issued by the same ruler describe how Govinda was accustomed to plunge straightway into the thick of battle without caring to consider the odds against him. His fondness for sport (64) also attests to active habits and personal bravery. His successful campaigns in the north and the south attest to his generalship and power of organisation. His victory over Stambha at the beginning of his reign speaks volumes for his diplomacy. His creation of the Gujrat viceroyalty (65) under his brother Indra not only secured the northern boundaries of the empire, but enabled his child successor to regain the throne. For, both Indra, who predeceased him, and his son Karka, were loyal to the imperial throne (66) and defended it against internal and external enemies.

c9.s3.55

⁶² I. A., XII, pp. 158 ff.

c9.s3.56

⁶³ J. B. B. R. A. S., XX, pp. 135 ff.

c9.s3.57

⁶⁴ I. A., XI, pp. 126 ff.

c9.s3.58

⁶⁵ It is usually supposed that Gujrat was reconquered by Govinda and handed over to his brother Indra. But no record, contemporary

Linked texts (12)