The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s14.34

Language: English

c8.s14.34.1

protection of the good,” which occurs, for instance, in connection with Gangapermaṇadi-Bhuvanaikavira-Udayâditya, a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Sômêśvara II. (Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 209, text lines 23, 24).—There was also an expression, sukha-saṃkathâ-vinôdadim râjyaṃ-gêyu, or, in Sanskrit, sukha-saṃkathâ-vinôdêna râjyaṃ kri, which was affected specially by the more powerful Mahâmaṇḍalêśvaras or feudatory nobles, who, while acknowledging the authority of paramount sovereigns, evidently enjoyed a certain amount of independence, and frequently omitted, in their records, to mention, or make any allusion to, their paramount masters. This expression was plainly of intermediate purport. Mr. Rice has rendered it by “ruling the kingdom in peace and wisdom” (e. g., Mysore Inscriptions, p. 2, and note). And I have rendered it by “governing with the recreation of pleasing conversations” (e. g., Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 18). Now, however, I should prefer to render it by “ruling with the pleasure of an agreeable or friendly interchange of communications (with the paramount sovereign);” this seems, not only to convey the idea that is intended, but also to be as close a literal translation as is possible.—Among the feudatory nobles or princes, this expression is found, in records of the Śilâhâras of Karâḍ (e. g., Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 210, text lines 15, 16), the Raṭṭas of Saundatti (e. g., Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 268, text line 64), the Kâdambas of Hângal (e.

c8.s14.34.2

g., Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 252, text lines 31, 32), of the Kâdambas of Goa (e. g., Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. IX. p. 297, text line 17), of the Sindas of Yelburga (e. g., id. Vol. XI. p. 228, text line 40), of the Guttas of Guttal (e. g., P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 109, line 69), of the Pâṇḍyas of Noḷambavâḍi (e. g., id. No. 172, lines 32, 33), and of the Hoysaḷas of Dôrasamudra, before the time when they attained paramount sovereignty (e. g., id. No. 18, seventh side, lines 8, 9.) It will not be found always where I have used the word “ruling” in connection with these princes in the pages of this account,—for the reason that in many of the records the construction renders unnecessary the use of any such expression at all; but it occurs with sufficient frequency to show that it was the expression that would be used on any occasion on which it might be sought to define exactly their position and authority.—I have fourteen verified instances in which the same expression occurs, very exceptionally, in connection with paramount sovereigns; in the cases of Jayasiṃha II., Vikramâditya VI., Bijjaḷa, Sôvidêva, Vira-Baḷḷâḷa II., Narasimha II., and Narasimha III. (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. Nos. 155, 163, 164, 168, 171, 175, 186, 185, 147, 200, 233, 123, and 148; Mysore Inscriptions, pp. 146, 150, 163, 81, 139, 176, 169; 110, 7, 106, 217, 33, and 11; and Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 234, text line 52).

c8.s14.34.3

The reason for the use of it in these cases is not apparent.—It occurs sometimes in connection with the wives of paramount sovereigns; for instance, in the case, of Lakshmâdêvî, one of the queens of Vikramâditya VI. (Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 186, text lines 9, 10).—And it also occurs in the case of Yuvarâjas (see, for instance, page 149 below, note 10, in the case of Jayasiṃha III.); and in the case of sons of paramount sovereigns, who without being formally appointed Yuvarâjas, were administering portions of the kingdom (for instance, in the case of Vishṇuvardhana-Vijayâditya, son of Sômêśvara I.; (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 136; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 19).—The only instances that I have been able to trace, of the use of the whole expression, including râjyaṃ-gêyu, in connection with any feudatory or official who was not a Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara, are in the cases of the Mahâpradhâna, Antaḥpura-vergade, and Daṇḍanyaka Kêśimayya, an officer of the Kaḷachurya king Âhavamalla, who was thus ruling the Banavâsi province in A.D. 1181 (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 191; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 138), and of the Daṇḍanyaka Armaṭivâḷa, a minister of Vira-Baḷḷâḷa II., who was thus ruling at Sâtarûr in A.D. 1195 (Inscriptions in the Mysore District, Part I., No. TN. 31); the record applies the same expression to also Vira-Baḷḷâḷa himself).

c8.s14.34.4

The term sukha-saṃkathâ-vinôda occurs, however,—though not with râjyaṃ-gêyu, but with âḷu, ‘to govern,’ and pratipâḷisu, ‘to protect,’—in the cases of an exceptionally high official of Vikramâditya VI., the Mahâpradhâna, Bâṇasa-veggaḍe, and Daṇḍanyaka Anantapâḷayya, who was thus ruling the Banavâsi province and the Beḷvoḷa and Puḷigere districts, and managing the paṇḍya-tax of the seven-and-a-half-lâkh country, in A.D. 1102-1103, and of a subordinate of his, the Daṇḍanyaka Gôvindarasa, who, at the same time, was thus managing the mêḷvatteya-vaḍḍarvula, eraḍu-biḷkoḍe, and perjunka taxes (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. Nos. 168, 171; Mysore Inscriptions, pp. 79, 80, 139); in the case of Anantapâḷayya, the use of the term is in accordance with the fact that he was also styled Mahâsâmantâdhipati, which was of much the same purport with Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara; in the case of Gôvindarasa, the justification for its use is not so apparent. And it occasionally occurs in connection with simply sara, S.-S. 904 expired,¹ and an inscription at Tâlgund in Mysore,² dated either in Vaiśâkha (April-May) or Âśvayuja (Sept.-Oct.), falling in A. D. 997, of the Hêmalambi samvatsara, S.-S. 919 (expired), which records that his feudatory Bhîmarasa, also called Tailapana-aṅkakâra or "the warrior or champion of Tailapa,"³ was governing the Banavâsi twelve-thousand, the Sântalige thousand, in Mysore, and the Kisukâḍ seventy or the country round Pattadakal in the Bijâpur District.

c8.s14.34.5

Where his capital was, is not certain; though, as suggested above, it may very possibly have been Mâlkheḍ. But the localities named in the records mentioned above, shew that he established his sway over the whole of the southern part of the territories that had been held by the Râshṭrakûṭas. The pointed and regretful way in which the Bhadâna grant of the feudatory Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Aparâjita, of the Silâhâra family, issued in June, A. D. 997, and evidently within the period of his reign, speaks of his having overthrown Kakka II., indicates plainly that his supremacy was admitted in the territory of the northern branch of the Silâhâra family in the Koṅkaṇ. And the statement in the Saṅgamnêr grant of A. D. 1000, that it was the Mahâsâmanta Bhillama II., of the Yâdava family of Sêuṇadêśa, who actually defeated Muñja,⁴ shews that this feudatory prince also, whose province lay in the direction of Auraṅgâbâd, Nâsik, and Khândêsh, recognised his suzerainty in the more northern parts of the Râshṭrakûṭa dominions to the east of the Western Ghauts. On the other hand, he cannot have acquired any of the Gujarât provinces: for, not only have we dates ranging from A. D. 941-42 to 996-97 for the Chaulukya king Mûlarâja of Aṇhilwâḍ,⁵ whose successors, moreover, maintained the sovereignty for the next four centuries, but, also, somewhere about A. D.

c8.s14.34.6

975, amidst the events which attended the downfall of the Râshṭrakûṭas, a Chaulukya prince named Bârappa,—evidently some connection of Mûlarâja,—seized the Lâṭa country, which remained in the possession of his family until at