The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s13.298

c8.s13.298

but he has done so unnecessarily. He seems to object primarily to the name Gôvindâmbâ which he styles 'unique,' 'queer,' and 'absurd.' He then corrects the Amôghavarsha Gôvindâmb-âbhidhânâyâm of the Karḍâ grant into Amôghavarsha Gôvindô-Mbâmb-âbhidhânâyâm. And, finding in the passage, thus corrected, two sons, Amôghavarsha and Gôvinda, of a lady named Ambâ, he identifies this Ambâ with Vijâmbâ, the wife of Indra III., and the two sons with Amôghavarsha II. and Gôvinda IV., the real sons of the same person. Also, he relies on the Sâṅglî grant making no mention of the marriage of Jagattunga II. with Gôvindâmbâ; and to the Karḍâ grant omitting to mention the sons of Indra III.—Now, his objection to the name Gôvindâmbâ is capricious and unsustainable. It is the exact Sanskrit correlation of Gôvindavva,—(to be looked for as Gôvindabbe or Gôyindabbe in any Kanarese inscription),—which occurs freely in the Kanarese country in the Nâmdâr-Raḍḍer, Dâsar or Kabbêr, and Waḍḍer castes, and especially in the former of these, in which it seems to be rather a favourite (as analogous names, I may quote Śivavva, Rudravva, Basavva, Śivabasavva, and Channabasavva). And, as regards his other objections, as the Sâṅglî grant is a record of Gôvinda IV., it naturally does not mention the succession after him, and consequently it had no occasion to mention the second wife of Jagattunga II. to those son the succession then went; and the reason why the Karḍâ grant, which does mention Indra IV., omits to mention his sons, is fully explained by the fact that Amôghavarsha II. did not reign, and by the statement in the Wardhâ grant, that Gôvinda IV. alienated the affections of his people, and that the kingdom was restored by Amôghavarsha-(Vaddiga), the son of Jagattunga II. There is no need to assume any needless repetition, or any omissions, in the Karḍâ grant, as Dr. Bhandarkar did; or to alter the text in any way whatever.—While differing from Dr. Bhandarkar on this point, I recognise, and endorse certain valid corrections, which he has pointed out, in the subsequent steps of the genealogy as previously given by me.