The Colas c20.7

c20.7

The hostility of Vijayāditya VII to Rājarāja, and possibly to his son Rājēndra-Kulōttunga, that becomes apparent from these plates has led to the identification of Vijayāditya VII with Viṣṇuvardhana-Vijayāditya (of some Western Cāḷukya inscriptions) who bears Eastern Cāḷukya titles like Sarvalōkāśraya and Vēṅgīmaṇḍalēśvara. Fleet who first proposed this identification, basing himself mainly on the similarity of names and titles,¹¹ subsequently gave it up and made the Western Cāḷukya prince a fourth son of Sōmēśvara I, not mentioned by Bilhaṇa, apparently because he played a very insignificant part.¹² In recent years, Fleet's original identification has again found support from scholars under the influence of the newly discovered copper-plates of Vijayāditya VII and his son Śaktivarman II, and attempts have been made to prove that after the failure of his first usurpation (A.D. 1030-32), Vijayāditya left the Vēṅgī country and sought service under and support from Sōmēśvara I.¹³ It is true that a marriage relation between the two branches of Cāḷukyas such as was postulated by Fleet is impossible, and Vijayāditya-Viṣṇuvardhana, if he was a son of Sōmēśvara, could not have had an Eastern Cāḷukya princess for his mother.¹⁴ Again the omission of this name by Bilhaṇa, and the phrase *tatpādapadmārādhaka* in the inscriptions, describing the relation of Viṣṇuvardhana-Vijayāditya to Sōmēśvara I, raise a doubt as to whether he was the son of Sōmēśvara though he is elsewhere called *maga* and *nandana*.¹⁵