The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s5: Section XIV. The Yadavas of Devagiri. Early History of the Family

The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s5

Language: English

Section XIV. The Yadavas of Devagiri. Early History of the Family

THE genealogy of the Yâdavas is given in the introduction to the Vratakhaṇḍa attributed to or composed by Hemâdri who was a minister of Mahâdeva, one of the later princes of the dynasty. Some of the manuscripts of the work, however, do not contain it, and in others it begins with Bhillama, as it was he who acquired supreme power and raised the dynasty to importance. Others again contain an account of the family from the very beginning, the first person mentioned being the Moon who was churned out of the milky ocean. From the Moon the genealogy is carried down through all the Purâṇic or legendary ancestors to Mahâdeva. But it is not difficult from the account itself to determine where the legend ends and history begins. Besides, the names of most of the historical predecessors of Bhillama agree with those occurring in the copper-plate grant translated by Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl Indraji.¹ He considered the Yâdava dynasty mentioned in his grant to be different from that of Devagiri and called it "A New Yâdava Dynasty," as, of course, in the absence of the information I now publish, he was justified in doing. But it is now perfectly clear that the princes mentioned in the grant were the ancestors of the Devagiri Yâdavas. The following early history of the family is based on the account given in the Vratakhaṇḍa² and on the grant published by the Paṇḍit. The latter, however, brings down the genealogy only to Seunachandra II. who was on the throne in 991 Śaka or 1069 A.D., and omits the names of some of the intermediate princes. Two other grants by princes of this dynasty found at Saṃgamner and Kalas-Budruk of earlier dates¹ have been recently published, and these also have been compared.

c8.s5.4

¹ Ind. Ant., Vol. XII., p. 119 et seq.

c8.s5.5

² The edition of the Vratakhaṇḍa in the Bibliotheca Indica contains neither of these two very valuable and important Praśastis. I have therefore had recourse to manuscripts. There is one manuscript only in the Government collections deposited in the Library of the Dekkan College and that is No. 234 of Collection A of 1881-82 which was made by me. It contains the shorter Praśasti beginning with the reign of Bhillama. There is another copy in the collection belonging to the old Sanskrit College of Poona, which contains the longer Praśasti. Unfortunately, however, the third and fourth leaves of the manuscript are missing; and the second ends with Parammadeva the successor of Seuṇachandra II., while the fifth begins with some of the last stanzas of the introduction referring to Hemâdri and his works. The valuable portion therefore was in leaves 3 and 4; but that is irretrievably lost. I have therefore endeavoured to procure copies from the private collections in the city of Poona and obtained one from Khâsgivâle's library. It contains the shorter Praśasti only. My learned friend Gaṅgâdhar S'âstri Dâtâr procured another. In it the two, the shorter one and the longer, are jumbled together. There are in the commencement the first seventeen stanzas of the shorter, and then the longer one begins; and after that is over, we have the remaining stanzas of the shorter. This is the only manuscript of the four now before me which contains the whole of the longer Praśasti, and the information it gives about the later princes of the dynasty known to us from the inscriptions is also valuable and new, but the manuscript is extremely incorrect. I therefore caused a search for other copies to be made at Nâsik, Kolhâpur, and Ahmedabad; but none was available at those places. I give the two Praśastis in Appendix C. [Since the first edition was published I have obtained and purchased another copy of the Vratakhaṇḍa for the Government collections. The introductory portion here is more correctly written, and I have used it in revising this section and the Praśasti in Appendix C.]

c8.s5.6

¹ Mr. Cousen's impression of the first of these grants was seen by me before it was published by Prof. Kielhorn in Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II., p. 212 et seq., and its contents embodied in the copy of this work revised for this second edition. I have, however, since availed myself of one or two points made out by Prof. Kielhorn and not noticed by me. The second grant is published in Ind. Ant., Vol. XVII., p. 120, et seq.

c8.s5.7

Subāhu who belonged to the Yādava race was a universal sovereign. He had four sons among whom he divided the whole earth ruled over by him. The second son Dridhaprahāra² became king in the south or Dekkan. The Yādavas, it is stated, were at first lords of Mathurā; then from the time of Kṛishṇa they became sovereigns of Dvāravatī or Dvārakā; and came to be rulers of the south from the time of the son of Subāhu, viz. Dridhaprahāra. His capital was Śrīnagara according to the Vratakhaṇḍa, while from the grant it appears to have been a town of the name of Chandrādityapura, which may have been the modern Chāmdor in the Nāsik district. He had a son of the name of Seunachandra who succeeded to the throne. The country over which he ruled was called Seunades'a³ after him, and he appears to have founded a town also of the name of Seunapura. Seunades'a was the name of the region extending from Nāsik to Devagiri, the modern Daulatābād, since later on we are told that Devagiri was situated in Seunades'a and that this latter was situated on the confines of Daṇḍakāraṇya.⁴ This name seems to be preserved in the modern Khāndes'. In a footnote on the opening page of the Khāndes' Volume, the Editor of the "Bombay Gazetteer" observes that the name of the country was older than Musalman times, and it was afterwards changed by them to suit the title of Khān given to the Fāruki kings by Ahmed I. of Gujarāt. Seunades'a, therefore, was very likely the original name and it was changed to Khāndes', which name soon came into general use on account of its close resemblance in sound to Seunades'a. The country however extended farther southwards than the present district of Khāndes', since it included Devagiri or Daulatābād, and probably it did not include the portion north of the Tāpī.

c8.s5.8

² He is called Dridhaprahāra (nom. sing.) in the MSS.; stanza 20, Appendix C. I.

c8.s5.9

³ Stanza 22, Appendix C. I.

c8.s5.10

⁴ Stanza 19, Appendix C. II.

c8.s5.11

Seunachandra's son Dhāḍiyappa⁵ became king after him and he was succeeded by his son Bhillama. After Bhillama, his son S'rīrāja according to the grants, or Rājugi according to the other authority, came to the throne, and he was succeeded⁶ by his son Vaddiga or Vādugi. Vaddiga is in the Saṃgamner grant represented as a follower of Kṛishṇarāja who was probably Kṛishṇa III. of the Rāshṭrakūṭa dynasty, and to have married Vodḍiyavvā, daughter of a prince of the name of Dhorappa. Then came Dhâḍiyasa,¹ who was the son of Vâdugi according to the Vratakhaṇḍa. Two of the grants omit his name, probably because he was only a collateral and not an ancestor of the grantor in the direct line, and the third has a line or two missing here. Dhâḍiyasa was succeeded by Bhillama, who was the son of Vaddiga or Vâdugi and consequently his brother.² Bhillama married according to the grants Lakshmî or Lachchhiyavvâ,³ the daughter of Jhañjha, who was probably the Śilâhâra prince of Ṭhâṇâ of that name. Lachchhiyavvâ sprang on her mother’s side from the Râshṭrakûṭa family, and through her son became “the upholder of the race of Yadu;”⁴ so that she was connected with three ruling dynasties and flourishing kingdoms. The Saṃgamner grant appears to have been issued by this Bhillama in the Śaka year 922, *i. e.* 1000 A.D., and the prince mentioned in

c8.s5.12

⁵ Called Dhāḍiyasa in the MSS.; Apppendix C. I., stanza 23.

c8.s5.13

⁶ Ibid. Pandit Bhagvānlāl translates the words arvāk tasya (see note 6 below) occurring in the Yādava grant as "before him," and placing Vaddiga before S'rīrāja, conjectures that he was Bhillama's son and that S'rīrāja his uncle deposed him and usurped the throne; (Ind. Ant., Vol. XII., pp. 125a and 126b). But arvāk tasya can never

c8.s5.14

mean “before him,” and must mean “after him”, and hence the conjectures are groundless. I have never seen a *preceding* prince mentioned in the grants after his successor, with such an introductory expression as “before him so and so became king.” By the occurrence of the word अजनिष्ट in stanza 23, line 2, Appendix C. I., it appears Râjagi was the son of Bhillama I.

c8.s5.15

¹ Appendix C. I. stanza 24. If he had been mentioned in the grant, he would probably have been called Dhâḍiyappa.

c8.s5.16

² *Ibid.* Paṇḍit Bhagavânlâl omits this prince though he is mentioned in his grant. The last two lines of the fourth stanza in this are:— आर्वातस्तस्य बभूव भूतल्हरिः श्रीवद्दिगाख्यो नृपः तस्मात्त्रीवरभिज्ञमक्षितिपतेः प्रत्यक्षधर्माभवत् ||

c8.s5.17

The Paṇḍit translates this:—“Before him was the illustrious king Vaddiga, a Hari on earth; and therefore he was exactly like the illustrious good Bhillama in his actions.” I have already remarked that instead of “before him,” we should have “after him” here. The word तस्मात् is translated by “therefore.” “Wherefore?” I would ask. No reason is given in the first of these lines for his being *exactly like* Bhillama; and therefore, it will not do to translate तस्मात् by “therefore.” . Again, the Paṇḍit’s interpretation of प्रत्यक्षधर्मा as “exactly like in actions” is farfetched and unnatural. The thing is, the genitive or ablative क्षितिप्तेः cannot be connected with any word in the line, and is therefore one of the innumerable mistakes which we have in this grant and most of which have been pointed out by the Paṇḍit himself. What is wanted here is the nominative क्षितिपतिः for क्षितिप्तेः and then the whole is appropriate, and तस्मात् will have its proper sense of “after him,” or “from him.”

c8.s5.18

The correct translation then is “*After him* was a king of the name of Vaddiga the prosperous, who was a Hari on earth, and after him or of him (*i. e.* Vaddiga) came the prosperous, great Bhillama in whom Virtue became incarnate.” In this way we have here another king Bhillama, as mentioned in the Prâśasti in the Vratakhaṇḍa in the passage cited above.

c8.s5.19

³ This lady, according to my translation, becomes the wife of Bhillama, who is the king mentioned immediately before, and not of his father Vaddiga as the Paṇḍit makes out.

c8.s5.20

⁴ Here there is another difficulty arising from a mistake in the grant which Paṇḍit Bhagavânlâl has in my opinion not succeeded in solving; and he bases upon that mistake conjectures which are rather too far-reaching (p. 125*a*, Ind. Ant., Vol. XII.). The stanza is:— भार्या यस्य च झंझराजतनया श्रीलस्थियव्वा धर्मत्यागविवेकबुद्धिसगुणा राष्ट्रकूटान्वया | या जाता नवबालनाजसमये यदन्वयाधारिता सप्तांगोद्यतराज्यभारधरणाद्रात्यन्याय्या ततः ||

c8.s5.21

The Paṇḍit’s translation is:—“Whose wife was the daughter of king Jhañjha Lasthiyavvâ by name, possessed of the (three) good qualities of virtue, liberality, and the grant as having struck a blow against the power of Muñja and rendered the sovereign authority of Raṇaraṅgabhīma firm seems also to be he himself. Raṇaraṅgabhīma was probably Tailapa, and thus it follows that the Yâdava prince Bhillama II. assisted Tailapa in his war with Muñja which we have already noticed. Vaddiga was a follower of Kṛishṇa III. of the Râshṭrakûṭa family, whose latest known date is 881 Śaka, and Bhillama II. of Tailapa. The date 922 Śaka of Bhillama’s grant is consistent with these facts. The Yâdavas appear thus to have transferred their allegiance from the old to the new dynasty of paramount sovereigns as soon as it rose to power. The next king was Vesugi¹ called in Paṇḍit Bhagavânlâl’s grant Tesuka, which is a mistake or misreading for Vesuka or Vesuga. He married Nâyaladevī, the daughter of Gogi, who is styled a feudatory of the Châlukya family,² and was perhaps the same as the successor of the Thânâ prince Jhañjha. The Râshṭrakûṭas must have been overthrown by the Châlukyas about the end of Jhañjha’s reign, and thus his successor became a feudatory of the Châlukyas.

c8.s5.22

¹ Stanza 24, Appendix C. I.

c8.s5.23

² The expression चालुक्यान्वय्यमण्डलीक in the grant admits of being taken in the manner I have done, मण्डलीक being a mistake for माण्डलिक. The Paṇḍit understands Gogirâja as belonging to the Châlukya race. I consider my interpretation to be more probable.

c8.s5.24

hospitality, who was of the Râshṭrakûṭa race, as being *adopted* (by them) at the time of the rule of the young prince (during his minority) and who therefore by reason of bearing the burden of the kingdoms, with its seven aṅgas, was an object of reverence to the three kingdoms.”

c8.s5.25

I agree with the Paṇḍit in reading श्री before राष्ट्रकूटन्वया and taking रायत्रय as राज्यत्रय, and, generally, in his translation of the first two and the fourth lines. But the translation of the third line, that is, the portion italicised in the above, is very objectionable. The Paṇḍit reads राज from नाज and says that the य in यदन्वया० ought to be long for the metre, but would make no sense. Now, in seeking the true solution of the difficulty here, we must bear in mind that in the fourth line the lady is spoken of as “an object of reverence to the three kingdoms.” Which are the three kingdoms? First evidently, that of Jhañjha, her father, who is spoken of in the first line; and secondly, that of the Râshṭrakûṭas from whose race she is spoken of as having sprung in the second line. Now, we must expect some allusion to the third kingdom in the third line. The third kingdom was clearly that of the Yâdavas into whose family she had been married. I, therefore, read यदन्वया० for यदन्वया० and thus the difficulty about the metre is removed, the य becoming prosodially long in consequence of the following द्व. In the same manner I think बालनाज is a mistake for बालजान The word जान the writer must have taken from his vernacular and considered it a Sanskrit word; or probably not knowing Sanskrit well, he must have formed it from the root जन् on the analogy of माद from मद, नाद from नद, मान from मन् &c. Or बालनाज may be considered as a mistake for बालजन्म, the sense being the same, viz. “birth of a child.” The compound यदन्वयाधारिता is to be dissolved as आधारितः यदन्वयः यया । आधारित being made the second member according to Pâṇini II. 2, 37. Or, the line may be read as या याता नवबालजन्मसमये यदन्वयाधारतां, the dot over ता being omitted by mistake, and याता written as जाता in consequence of the usual confusion between य and ज. The translation of the line, therefore, is “who became the upholder of the race of Yadu on the occasion of the birth of a new child,” i. e. through her child she became the upholder of the Yâdava race. In this manner the supposition of her being adopted by the Râshṭrakûṭas during the young prince’s minority becomes groundless. She must have belonged to the Râshṭrakûṭa race on her mother’s side.

c8.s5.26

Bhillama II., son-in-law of Jayasimha.

c8.s5.27

The Vratakhaṇḍa places Arjuna after Vesugi,¹ but the two grants omit his name; and perhaps the former mentions Arjuna not as a Yâdava prince, but Arjuna the Pâṇḍava, meaning to compare Vesugi with him and his enemies to Bhîshma. The next king was Bhillama² who according to the Kalas-Budruk grant was Vesugi's son. He married Hammâ, the daughter of Jayasiṁha and sister of Âhavamalla, the Châlukya emperor, under whose standard he fought several battles.³ The Kalas-Budruk charter was issued by this prince in 948 Śaka. The cyclic year being Krodhana, 948 Śaka must have been the current year, corresponding to 1025 A.D. Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl's grant then proceeds at once to the donor, the reiguing prince Seuṇa, who is spoken of in general terms as "having sprung from the race" of the last-mentioned king, and is represented to have defeated several kings and freed his kingdom from enemies after "the death of Bhillama." This Bhillama was his immediate predecessor, but he was a different person from the brother-in-law of Âhavamalla, since Seuṇa, is spoken of not as the son of the latter or any such near relation but simply as "having sprung from his race." The Vratakhaṇḍa supplies the names of the intermediate princes. The elder Bhillama was succeeded by Vâdugi,⁴ his son, "whose praise was sung by poets in melodious words." After him Vesugi⁵ became king, but how he was related to Vâdugi we are not told. He humbled a number of subordinate chiefs who had grown troublesome. Then came Bhillama, and after him Seuṇa⁶ who issued the charter translated by Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl. What relationship the last three princes bore to each other is not stated.

c8.s5.28

¹ Stanza 24, Appendix C. I.

c8.s5.29

² Stanza 26, Ibid.

c8.s5.30

³ This appears to me to be the general sense of stanza 8 and not that he fought with Âhavamalla as Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl understands. I need not discuss the matter in detail.

c8.s5.31

⁴ Stanza 26, Appendix C. I.

c8.s5.32

⁵ Stanza 27, Ibid.

c8.s5.33

⁶ Stanza 28. Ib,

c8.s5.34

Seuṇachandra II., the ally of Vikramâditya II.

c8.s5.35

Seuṇa is represented to have saved Paramardideva, that is, Vikramâditya II., who is styled the "luminary of the Châlukya family" from a coalition of his enemies, and to have placed him on the throne of Kalyâṇa.⁷ This appears to be a reference to the coalition between the Veṅgi prince and Vikramâditya's brother Someśvara. The Yâdava prince Seuṇa was thus a close ally of the Châlukya monarch and their dates also are consistent with the fact. Seuṇachandra's grant is dated Śaka 991 Saumya Saṁvatsara, while Vikramâditya II. got possession of the Châlukya throne in Śaka 998 Naḷa. The grant mentions the relations of previous Yâdava princes to the Châlukyas of Kalyâṇa, while the important service rendered by Seuṇachandra to Vikramâditya is not recorded, and he is spoken of only in general terms as having vanquished "all kings." This itself shows that in all likelihood the fact mentioned in the Vratakhaṇḍa of Seuṇachandra's having delivered that prince from his enemies and placed him on the throne took place after Śaka 991, and we know it as a matter of fact that Vikramâditya became king in Śaka 998.

c8.s5.36

⁷ Stanza 29, Ib.

c8.s5.37

Seuṇachandra was succeeded by Parammadeva who was probably his son, and after him came Simhaṇâja¹ or “King Simha,” whose full name was Siṅghaṇa² and who appears to have been his brother. He is said to have brought an elephant of the name of Karpûratilaka from Lañjîpura and thus did a piece of service to Paramardin, who appears to be Vikramâditya II: of the Châlukya dynasty.³ He was succeeded by his son Mallugi, who took a town of the name of Parnakheṭa from his enemies, and while residing there carried away by force the troop of elephants belonging to the king of Utkala or Orissa.⁴ Then followed his son Amaragâṅgeya⁵ whose name is mentioned in a copper-plate grant issued in the reign of a subsequent king.⁶ After him came Govindarâja who was probably his son. Govindarâja was succeeded by Amaramallagi, a son of Mallugi, and he by Kâliya Ballâḷa. This prince was in all likelihood the son of Amaramallagi, though it is not expressly stated. Ballâḷa’s sons were set aside and the sovereignty of the Yâdava family fell into the hands of his uncle Bhillama,⁷ who was possessed of superior abilities. Bhillama being represented as the uncle of Ballâḷa must have been another son of Mallugi, and he is so spoken of in the grant referred to above.⁸ He got possession of the throne after two of his brothers and their sons, wherefore he must have been a very old man at the time. Hence it is that he reigned only for a short time, having come to the throne in Śaka 1109 and died in 1113. It was this Bhillama who acquired for his family the empire that was ruled over by the Châlukyas.

c8.s5.38

¹ Stanzas 30 and 31, Appendix C. I.

c8.s5.39

² Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV., p. 315.

c8.s5.40

³ Stanza 32, Appendix C. I.

c8.s5.41

⁴ Stanzas 33 and 34, Ibid.

c8.s5.42

⁵ Stanza 35, Ibid.

c8.s5.43

⁶ Jour. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XV., p. 386.

c8.s5.44

⁷ Stanzas 35-37, Appendix C. I.

c8.s5.45

⁸ In an inscription at Gadag published by Dr. Kielhorn (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III., p. 219) Bhillama is represented as the son of Karṇa, who is said to be a brother of Amaragâṅgeya. In the many inscriptions of the Yâdava dynasty and in the Praśastis given in several books the name Karṇa does not occur even once. The Gadag inscription makes Mallugi the son of Seuṇadeva, while in the Vratakhaṇḍa and the Paiṭhan plates he is represented as the son of Siṅghaṇa, who according to the former authority was one of the successors of Seuṇachandra and was probably his younger son. The inscription is here opposed to two authorities which agree with each other. Hence this must be a mistake; and that makes it probable that the other is also a mistake. These suppositions are strengthened by the fact that the composer of the Gadag inscription does not mention a single particular fact with reference to any one of the princes, thus showing that he had no accurate knowledge of them. Such a merely conventional description is characteristic of a forged charter. I am, for these reasons, inclined to think that the Gadag grant published by Dr. Kielhorn is a forgery.

c8.s5.46

Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl has published a stone-inscription⁹ existing in a ruined temple at Aũjaneri near Nâsik, in which a chief of the Yâdava family, named Seuṇadeva, is represented to have made some grant in the Śaka year 1063¹⁰ to a Jaina temple. From the account given above, it will be seen that there were two princes only of the name of Seuṇa in the Yâdava family, and that the later of the two was an ally of Vikramâditya II., and consequently reigned about the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century of the Śaka

c8.s5.47

⁹ Ind. Ant., Vol. XII., p. 126.

c8.s5.48

¹⁰ The correct year has been shown to be 1064 Śaka by Prof. Kielhorn, Ind. Ant., Vol. XX., p. 422.

c8.s5.49

era. The Seuṇadeva of the Añjaneri inscription therefore cannot be this individual, and no other prince of that name is mentioned in the Vratakhaṇḍa. Besides Seuṇadeva calls himself pointedly a Mahāsāmanta or chief only; while about 1063 Śaka, when the Châlukya power had begun to decline, it does not appear likely that the Yâdavas of Seuṇades'a should give themselves such an inferior title. It therefore appears to me that the Seuṇadeva of Añjaneri belonged to a minor branch of the Yâdava family dependent on the main branch, and that the branch ruled over a small district of which Añjaneri was the chief city.

c8.s5.50

Approximate date of the foundation of the Yâdava family.

c8.s5.51

The number of princes who reigned from Dṛiḍhaprahâra to Bhillama V. inclusive is 22. There are in the list a good many who belonged to the same generation as their predecessors and consequently these twenty-two do not represent so many different generations. Allowing, therefore, the usual average, in such cases of 18 years to each reign, the period that must have elapsed between the accession of Dṛiḍhaprahâra and the death of Bhillama V. is 396 years. The dynasty, therefore, was founded about 717 Śaka or 795 A.D., that is, about the time of Govind III. of the Râshṭrakûṭa race. Possibly considering that Vaddiga I. was contemporary of Kṛishṇa III., one might say that the dynasty was founded in the latter part of the reign of Amoghavarsha I.