The Rashtrakutas and their Times c9.s1: Govinda II
The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c9.s1
- Language
- English
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.
Linked texts (1)
- Vikramārjunavijaya — Pampa, Kannada