Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s12.114

The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s12.114

Language
English

c8.s12.114

⁴ His accession took place on some day, still to be exactly determined, from the *pûrṇimânta* Jyêshṭha kṛishṇa 1 of *Saka*-Saṁvat 520 current, in A. D. 597, up to Vaiśâkha śukla 15 of *S.*-S. 521 current, in A. D. 598; see *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XIX. p. 10.—The Kauthêm grant says that Maṅgalêśa succeeded as regent during the minority of Pulikêśin II., and peaceably resigned the throne when the latter attained maturity; and it indicates this as the proper custom from which no righteous Chalukya would deviate; but this is only an assertion of the eleventh century A. D. The almost contemporaneous Aihole record simply says that Maṅgalêśa became king on the death of Kîrtivarman I., and gives no hint of there being anything unusual in the circumstance. Is it possible that, in the accession of Maṅgalêśa, and in his attempt to secure the succession for his own son, we have an instance of an ancient custom, according to which sovereignty passed to brothers and brothers' sons, instead of in the direct line from the father to his eldest son, then to the latter's eldest son, and so on? This is stated to have been the custom in the Manipur State (see *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XX. p. 422). And Major Temple says (*id.* Vol. XXI. p. 288) that it is the rule throughout the Shân States, and has given instances of it in the Mâlêr-Kôtla State, and in the Alompra dynasty of Burma. So peculiar a custom as this, must have some basis in antiquity. And, though, of course, instances could be brought forward to shew that the custom, if it did exist, was not invariably observed,—(Major Temple has suggested causes which would operate against it),—still, the existence of the custom would explain a variety of seeming irregularities in the succession of the Rulers of Valabhî (see *id.* Vol. XV. p. 273); of the Eastern Chalukyas (see *id.* Vol. XX. p. 283), and of the Western Châlukyas (see the table in chapter IV. below).