Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c16: Chapter XI

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XI

v1.c16.1

(For the materials of this history we have many inscriptions of Eastern Chālukya kings; these and other various sources are available and have been utilized.)

v1.c16.2

The Chālukyas of Bādāmi under Pulakeśin II were the overlords of the whole of the south. They had conquered the Āndhras in the east, the Pallavas in the south, the Gurjaras in the west and the Kosalas and others in the north. Two separate branches of these Chālukyas were also founded in the east and the west at this time and Pulakeśin placed two brothers of his in these subordinate kingdoms. The first Eastern Chālukya king is styled Kubja Vishnu Vardhana and he began to rule in the Vengi kingdom wrested from the Pallavas from 605 A. D. according to one view or at the latest from 615 A. D. S. Krishnasvami Aiyangar in his history of Ancient India says (p. 27) "The Pallava generals marched up to the capital of the Chālukyas and so completely destroyed it that there was an interregnum for 13 years. It was to maintain peace in the Pallava position that Pulakeshin organised a separate viceroyalty at Vengi under his brother who became the founder of a dynasty". This is incorrect. For Vātāpi was plundered about 643 A. D. and the Vengi kingdom had already been founded in 605 or 615 A. D. Pulakeśin gave it to his brother in the natural fulfilment of brotherly affection or for policy in order to make a separate kingly provision for a royal brother. For his second brother, he similarly provided a kingdom in Gujarat or Lāta (capital Navasari). But Kubja Vishnuvardhana was fortunate enough to found a dynasty which was longer lived than its parent stem and which ruled in Vengi from the beginning of the 7th to the end of the 11th century when it was merged into the Chola kingdom the founder of which was a daughter's son of the last king of this line.

v1.c16.3

These Chālukyas of Vengi have left many grants and inscriptions and what is peculiar they usually mention the whole line with the regnal years of each king. Hence a tolerably accurate genealogy of this line can be given, like the one given at page 32 of the first volume of " South Indian inscriptions " by Hultzsch. The initial date of Vishnuvardhana is subject to discussion and is given by Hultzsch as 605 and by Dr. Fleet as 615 A. D. Probably it must be some years before 615 A. D. Five grants of these Eastern Chālukyas are given in the first volume of Smiths' Indian copperplates. The earlier of these grants do not give any history or legend before the mention of Chālukya Pulakeśin I. But the fifth which is clearly later and the Ranastipundi grant of Vimalāditya gives at the beginning the new legend which had become then current about the origin of the Chālukyas and which we have already noticed. These two grants ( Chellur, p. 51. S. I. Ins. Vol. I and Ranastipundi grant ditto Vol. V.) give a long list of kings with regnal years and these we will give here in detail as they are given in these two grants. Both these grants also give dates in Śaka year and the years of the coronation of the two last kings and hence we have a final date from which we may count back to the very first Kubja Vishnuvardhana as the regnal years of each and every king are given. But the list extends over a period of about 500 years a very long time indeed and certainty is unattainable. Dynastic lists appear to have been preserved in every state in India in ancient times and the records of Vengi as of Kashmir appear to have been particularly well preserved. But an interregnum of 27 years is mentioned and hence the list becomes again somewhat subject to doubt.

v1.c16.4

The names of these kings with their years and relationship as mentioned in these two grants are as follows:—

v1.c16.5

¹ Kubjavishnuvardhana, 18 years. 2 Son, Jayasinhavallabha, 33 years. 3 Brother, Indraraja, 7 days. 4 Son, Vishnuvardhana II, 9 years.

v1.c16.6

5 Son, Mangi Yuvarāja, 25 years. 6 Son, Jayasinha, 13 years. 7 Brother Kokkili, 6 months. Set aside by his elder brother :— 8 Vishnuvardhana III, 37 years 9 Son, Vijayāditya, 18 years 10 Son, Vishnuvardhana IV, 36 years 11 Son, Vijayāditya Narendra Mrigarāja a famous king who has left a grant, 48 years 12 Son, Kalivishnuvardhana V, 1½ year 13 Son, Gunaka Vijayāditya, 44 years 14 Nephew, Chālukya Bhīma, 30 years 15 Son, Kollabhi Ganda Vijayāditya, 6 months 16 Son, Ammarāja, 7 years. His child son was set aside by:— 17 Tādapa, 1 month 18 Setting him aside, son of Bhīma (14) Vikramāditya, 11 months 19 Son of 17, Yuddhāmalla, 7 years 20 Setting him aside, brother of 16 from country Bhīma, 12 years 21 Son, Ammarāja II, 25 years 22 Half-brother Dānanripa, 3 years Interregnum for 27 years.

v1.c16.7

Here the line seems to have been broken off but the next king Śaktivarman is said to be son of Dānanṛava who may be taken to be the last king Dānanripa No. 22, and the line proceeds as follows:—

v1.c16.8

23 Śaktivarman, son of 22, 12 years 24 Brother Vimalāditya, 7 years 25 Son Rājarāja, 41 years, of the lunar race married Ammangā daughter of Rajendra Choda of the solar race. 26 Son, Rajendra Choda.

v1.c16.9

The last first became king of Vengi and then overlord of the whole of the south conquering Kerala, Pāndya, Kuntala etc. He was then anointed king of the Choda kingdom (Chola). He married the Princess Madhurāntaki born of the solar Chola family. He had many sons. The account here related is not quite clear as it mixes up the Chola and Vengi kingdoms and families. Virachoda finally was anointed king on Thursday 13th Tithi (त्रिशिकलग्न), Śravaṇa Nakshatra, Bright fortnight, Sun being in Lion in Śaka 1001. This king makes this Chellur grant of a village in Guddavāli Vishaya to a temple of Vishnu built by his commander-in-chief Medarya born in a Brahmin family of the Mudgala gotra. This inscription is very important (p. 57, Vol. 1 S. Ind. Ins.) and we will further on describe it fully.

v1.c16.10

This inscription then gives us the names of kings, the length of the reign of each, his relation to the predecessor and the fact wherever the succession was violent. But unfortunately we have no other materials to co-ordinate a detailed consecutive history. Dr. Fleet has by the aid of other Eastern Chālukya grants made out a detailed story of this line and has also tried to fix the dates of the reigns of each king for which antiquarians will certainly be grateful to him (see his articles in Indian Antiquary Vol. XX). But there are certain facts even unexplained by him and we shall try to solve these difficulties. Now the first difficulty is about the succession of Kokkili No. 7. He was a younger son and yet he succeeded his eldest brother before his elder brother. After six months of possession he was set aside by this elder brother Vishnuvardhana who thereafter had a long reign of 37 years. What was the probable story of this apparent usurpation of Kokkili? We have already made a guess and it seems to be the proper one. Supposing that Vishnuvardhana the founder came to the throne in 605 A. D. we have for the end of the reign of Kokkili's eldest brother Jayasinha A. D. 703 (Vishnu 18 + Jay 33 + Vishnu 9 + Mangi 25 + Jayasinha 13 = 98 years). Now it is probable that the world-conquering expedition of Lalitāditya of Kashmir happened at this time. Jayasinha had just died or was killed in battle. His full brother must have fled owing to his dissentions with his step-mother and as stated in Kashmir chronicles that step-mother a Ratta lady offered submission to Lalitāditya. When Lalitāditya went away as usual, returning the subject kingdom to its owner, Kokkili the youngest brother was crowned king in the absence of his elder brother and proper claimant. He (Vishṇuvardhana) however returned, forcibly ejected his younger brother and seized the throne which was his due. (Kokkili is said plainly to be half brother of Jayasiṅha and Vishṇuvardhana may have been Jayasiṅha’s full brother. There was thus the enmity of step relation too see S. I. Ind. Vol. I page 41). If we place the founder Vishṇuvardhana’s reign in 615 A. D this Vishṇuvardhana’s reign and Jayasiṅha’s death would fall in 713 A. D. Lalitāditya’s whole digvijaya ended before 712 A. D. the date of the conquest of Sind by the Arabs as we have stated in Kashmir history. This may at first sight make the story of Lalitāditya’s coming to the south improbable. But as there is only a difference of a few years we hold that Vishṇuvardhana the founder’s reign may well be placed in 605 A. D. According to Dr. Fleet who takes Vishṇuvardhana the founder’s rule to begin in 615 A. D. Kokkili came to the throne in 709 A.D. (For he takes for Jayasiṅha 30 years). And this date 709 A. D. also fits in with Lalitāditya’s conquest of the south.*

v1.c16.11

∗ The ślokas in the Rājtarangiṇi are as follows :— तस्मिन् प्रसङ्गे रत्त्राख्या कर्णाटी चटुलेक्षणा । अपासीन्नृपतिर्मूर्त्वा पृथुश्रीर्दक्षिणापथम् ॥ विन्ध्याद्रिमार्गाः पर्याता निष्पर्यन्तप्रभावया । दुर्ग्येव तया देव्या कृता विहतकण्टका॥ललितादित्यापादा- ब्जनखदर्पणमण्डले । स्वमूर्तिं वीक्ष्य संक्रान्तां प्रणता साऽपि पित्रिये ॥ तरङ्ग० ४-१५२-४.

v1.c16.12

The translator Stein has, we think, wrongly said in a note here that this queen was a Rāshṭrakūṭa lady. In the Mahārāshtra the Chālukya family was still supreme and the Rāshṭrakūṭas had yet to rise for they came to power after 750 A. D. The Chālukya king was at this time Vijayāditya who may have probably been in prison at this time in Kāñchī (see Chālukya history). The mention of Vindhya passes indicates that Lalitāditya crossed the Eastern Ghauts into Vengi country. These hills have to be crossed whether you come into Vizagapattan from Orissa or from Raipur side. A Ratta Karnata queen would again probably indicate an Eastern Chālukya queen for they were Mahārāshtra by origin and Karnāta by language or in modern language they were Southern Mahratta country people. North and South India appear then as now differentiated in the matter of Pardah and we need not wonder that this Ratta queen presented herself before Lalitaditya and did him homage. She appears to have been a young lady also from Rājatarangiṇi and she must have been so from inscriptions also as she was a step-mother to the last king Jayasiṅha and her child son Kokkili was a half-brother of the former (see S. I. In, Hultzsch Vol. I, p. 41).

v1.c16.13.1

The next disputed succession appears to be that of Tādapa. King Ammarāja (no. 16) left a child son and he was set aside by one Tādapa who seems to be an outsider. Adding up the reigns of the intervening kings who appear to have mostly enjoyed long rule we have from 8 to 16 i. e. for 9 reigns 222 years and adding 703 A. D. the beginning of 8 we have 925 A. D. approximately for the usurpation of Tādapa. But he was promptly set aside after one month's reign by a younger son of Bhīma the 14th king who must have been a sardar of the kingdom enjoying a few villages. After 11 months he was himself set aside by another and better claimant to the throne Yudhāmalla a son of king no. 17. He reigned for 7 years. But he too was supplanted by another still better claimant viz. a brother of Ammarāja, the last king no 17. The expression used here is very important viz. तमुच्चाट्य देशादम्मराजानुजः. This is wrongly translated as "having expelled him from the country ;" for in a similar previous mention, the words तमुच्चाट्य alone are used. Hence देशात् does not go with the previous word but with the following. It means reaccording to our view "coming from the mother country" i. e. Mahārāshtra. The Eastern Chālukyas were Mahārāshtra in origin and had full intercourse with their parent land. A younger brother of Ammarāja must have sought fortune in Mahārāshtra and gained some jaghir there.

v1.c16.13.2

When he found his brother dead and his throne the subject of dispute between rival claimants he returned and succeeded as the rightful claimant to the last king undisputed. This happened 8 years after 925 i. e. in 933 A. D. The line continued unbroken for three generations further. He himself ruled for 12 years, his son Amma II 25 years and another son of his by another wife and hence half-brother of the last king ruled for 3 years. Here an explanation is necessary how Dānārnava who apparently is an elder brother of Amma II succeeded before him. We think the facts must have been as follows. Chālukya Bhīma his father came as we have said from the Deccan to claim his right to the Vengi throne as brother of Amma I. He was most likely a jagirdar in the Deccan. His eldest son he must have left to continue his Jagir there. Having succeeded in getting the throne of Vengi he married Loka Mahādevi a Chola princess probably and had by her Amma II who succeeded to the throne of Vengi getting also the name of Amma. He apparently died childless. His elder brother Dānārnava, therefore, gave up his jagir in the Deccan and came to the throne of Vengi. He reigned for 3 years only. Clearly enough his claims were contested and gave pretext to the Chola rising power to overthrow him. The Vengi kingdom remained without a king for 27 years. This explains the interregnum as also the coming to the throne of Dānārnava later than Amma II.

v1.c16.13.3

His son Śaktivarman however succeeded in establishing eventually his claim as we see further on. Now the grant says "by the evil turn of fortune the Vengi country was without a king for 27 years." Thus 12 + 25 + 3 = 40 years after 933 A. D. i. e. in 973 A. D. this interregnum began and lasted till 973 + 27 = 1000 A. D. What the cause of this interregnum really was it is difficult to surmise. Perhaps the disputes between rival claimants still continued and civil war was still raging, or the now rising power of the Cholas laid the kingdom waste. But a marriage relation between Chola and Vengi gave Vengi a further lease of life. The line was again established by Śaktivarman a son of Dānanripa the last king. He reigned 12 years and his brother Vimalāditya 7 years and his son Rājarāja 41. 60 years brings the end of the reign of Rājarāja to 1060 A. D. His son born of Ammangā daughter of Rajendra Choda and therefore himself called Rajendra, after 15 years' rule of an uncle and one year's rule of a brother gave the kingdom to his son named Virachoda also born of a Chola princess in Śaka 1001 i. e. 1079 A. D. Now from the above data we get 1076 A. D. a difference of three years only. These 3 years may either be added to the interregnum or to the initial date of Kubja Vishnuvardhana or may be due to the residue months and days of intervenning rulers which are given only in whole years.

v1.c16.13.4

The beginning of the Eastern Chālukya rule under Viṣṇuvardhana may thus be taken at any date between 605 A. D. and 615 which last however tallies well with a grant of this very king in 632 A. D. in the 18th year of his reign made on account of an eclipse in Śrāvaṇa (see Ind. Anti. Vol XX p. 13).

v1.c16.14

The political history of the Eastern Chālukyas does not seem to be very disturbed and they enjoyed a long rule from 605 A. D. to 1078 A. D. when they were merged into the new risen power of the Cholas. Their rule extended much beyond Vengi itself which is now a small town (Pedda Vegi) between the Godavari and the Krishna. They must have been lords of Kalinga also i. e. the territory to the north of the Godavari as far as the confines of modern Orissa. Raja-Mahendri was founded by the Eastern Chālukya later king named Amma called also by the biruda Rajamahendra. However, Kalinga seems to have had during this period a dynasty of its own called in their inscriptions the Ganga family. It must be noted that Kalinga is an ancient name and Vengi is much later. Kalinga like Mahārāṣtra is said to be composed of three countries and hence the name Trikalinga which by Prakrit phonetic change has become Telanga of the modern times. This Trikalinga is expressly mentioned in a grant of Vijayāditya (S. I. In. Hultzsch Vol. I. p. 45) as under the king Chālukya Bhīma. The expression is सत्रिकालिङ्गवङ्गिमण्डलपालयत् which shows that Vengimandala was considered distinct from Trikalinga. Vengi must, therefore, be taken to mean primarily the eastern coast district between the Godavari and the Krishna and Trikalinga meant Kalinga to the north of the Godavari, Āndhra inside the Ghauts and Ganjam, in which extended territory the Telagu language is still spoken (we will speak of Āndhra is a special note). The Eastern Chālukyas had also rule in the western Madras districts though not towards the south of the Krishna as they must have been opposed in early days by the Pallavas and later on by Cholas in this direction. These districts were latterly a subject of dispute between the eastern Chālukyas and the Rattas i. e. the Rāshtrakūta kings of Malkhed who were then supreme in Mahārāshtra. The Chālukyas thus fought often with the Gangas in Kalinga and the Rāshtrakūtas in the western districts. Their king Chālukya Bhīma is said in a grant to have fought 108 battles and to have built 108 Śiva temples. Another king is said to have even taken the capital of Krishna and burnt it (S. I. Ins. Vol. I p. 39). The eastern Chālukyas thus kept up their prestige for valour.

v1.c16.15

The Eastern Chālukyas probably spoke Kanarese while the Trikalingas i. e. Kalinga, Āndhra and Ganjam spoke Telagu and the southern country spoke Tamil. The Eastern Chālukyas, in the beginning however, for some years must have spoken a Sanskrit-born Prakrit Aryan language. They also appear to have kept up marriage relations with the Mahārāshtra and Central Indian Aryan families. A curious fact to be noted in this connection is that in a grant of Vijayāditya (S. In. Ins. Hultsch Vol. I p. 40) we are told that a village was granted to a sardar whose family name was Pattavardhana which family came down from the time of the founder Kubjavishnuvardhana. Now this name "Pattavardhana" is a Mahārāshtra name and still survives among Marathas, Brahmins and other castes also. This Pattavardhana family in the grant appears to have been Kshatriya, as the names of the persons in it are Somāditya, Kuntāditya and so on. It was a family of warriors of long-standing. In a grant of the same Chālukya king Narendra Mrigarāja, the "Ājnyaptā" or command-giver is said to be his brother Nriparudra of the Haihaya family (S. I. Ins. Hultsch Vol. I p. 34). The word brother here must of course mean son of his maternal or paternal aunt. The Chālukyas clearly thus married into the Haihaya Kalachuri family of Central India. It need not be surmised from this that they refused to marry into the Chola, Pāndya and other Dravidian families. For these too had become included by this time (about the 10th century) into the solar and lunar races and the last Eastern Chālukya king did marry a daughter of the powerful Chola kings now assigned as stated above to the solar race. But we may believe that in the beginning for some time at least the Eastern Chālukyas must have confined themselves to marriage with well-known Aryan Kshatriya families of Mahārāshtra and the north, they priding themselves still on their Kshatriya descent.

v1.c16.16

A few remarks may be made on the form of administration. It was apparently entirely northern. The word for lowest revenue division is vishaya and not nadu the Dravidian word. A village is always said to be situate in such and such a vishaya. Secondly the Ājnaptā or issuer of the command of grant is some prince but in one it is said to be Pancha Pradhānas (पञ्चप्रधानाः). This is a remarkable change. We hear for the first time the word प्रधान Pradhana, so much used in later Maratha history. The ministers are not eight but five; who they were cannot be surmised. The words Mantri, Amātya and Adhyaksha are by this time left behind and may have got into special significations. Thirdly, the grants are addressed to Rāshtrakūta-Pramukhān Kutumbinah (विषयनिवासिनो राष्ट्रकूट-प्रमुखान् कुटुम्बिनः इत्थमाज्ञापयति). Now this word राष्ट्रकूटप्रमुखान् is singular in these Eastern Chālukya grants and is not to be found in any other grants of the ancient kingdoms of India. What does it mean? It is translated as "heads of provinces" by the Ind. Ant. But this is not quite acceptable. A vishaya or Tehsil is the lowest division and above it comes Rāshtra (राष्ट्र) or Bhukti (भुक्ति) and so on. The word Rāshtra too occurs in these grants e. g. Krama Rāshtra and apparently shows a division larger than a vishaya. Rāshtrakūta ordinarily means head of a province but Rāshtrakūtas cannot come under vishayas. Of course here we have a distinct clue to the fact that Rāshtrakūta is not the name of a family as many think or thought but it is the name of an office and is the exact equivalent of the modern Deshmukh. Deshmukh and Deshpande (head patil and head writer) are higher officers of the District, not the Taluka. The Rāshtrakūta family of Malkhed, therefore, as we shall state in their history has merely an official position name changed into a family surname as Prabhu, Deshmukh and Senāpati (Senvi) etc. have become in later Marātha history. But what we urge here is that as Rāstrakūta office cannot come under vishaya, Rāstrakūta had already become apparently the name of local official families of Marathas. Deshmukhs in Vengi were usually Marathas and it is probable that under the Eastern Chālukyas, the Dravidian country must have been assigned to Rāstrakūta or Maratha families as hereditary Patils in the same way as in the Deccan. The grants are therefore addressed to the inhabitants of the vishaya of whom the Rāstrakūtas were the leading families. However, whether Rāstrakūta indicates Maratha people or not, this word Rāstrakūta occurring in the eastern Chālukya grants throws full light on the origin of the name of राष्ट्रकूट and shows that it means nothing more than a revenue official like the Deshmukh of modern days.

v1.c16.17

The Eastern Chālukya kings were worshippers of Śiva. They usually had long reigns being apparently well behaved (or in the absence of a truthful and detailed historian like Kalhaṇa they appear to be so from the inscriptions and grants which only eulogise their merits!). They observed Hindu religious practices rigorously and were strict enforcers of Varṇāśrama. They were usually educated persons, one king especially was proficient in mathematics and hence was called Guṇaka. The pedigree of the family derived from Yaduvaṃśa does not appear in their grants till about the 10th century when they appear to have entered into marriage relations with the Cholas who were now assigned to the solar race. This Yaduvaṃśa pedigree is neither taken from the Mahābhārata nor the Bhāgavata and is a riddle as discussed in detail in our note.

v1.c16.18

The Eastern Chālukya kings took the title usually of Mahārāja, some adding Mahārājādhirāja, Parmeśvara and Parama Bhaṭṭāraka. Their favourite Biruda was Vishama-Siddhi taken by the first king Vishnuvardhana (meaning the conqueror of strongholds or difficult places). They sometimes called themselves the Āśraya of something like the early Western Chalukyas: but they gave up the title of Vallabha which was now appropriated, so to speak, by Mahārāshtra kings namely those of the Rāshtrakūta family, following the usage of the Early Chalukyas.

v1.c16.19

Lastly, it would be interesting to notice a few further facts mentioned by Dr. Fleet in his paper on the Eastern Chālukyas (Ind. Ant. Vol. XX). Firstly the seal of the Eastern Chālukyas contained the legend Sri Tribhuvanānkuśa (श्री त्रिभुवनाङ्कुश ) always. The last grant of Vīrachoda however shows above it a boar—the usual Lānchana—half standing half couchant, to the proper left, Sun and Moon umbrella, conchshell, doubledrum and two Chauries; and the lower part an elephant, an ox-goad; an expanded waterlily and a device resembling the letter य. These latter are omitted in seals on other grants. The Chellur grant of Virachoda enumerates the Chālukya ensignias, the white umbrella, the single conchshell, Panchamahā-Śabda, Pāliketana, double drum, boar crest, bunch of feathers of peacock's tail, the spear, the throne, the Makaratoraṇa, golden sceptre, Gangā and Yamunā and others unspecified.* A similar list occurs in the Ganga grants of Kalinga Nagara. Their importance and meaning which is a riddle to many including Dr. Fleet we will try to elucidate later on. Golden coins of these Eastern Chālukyas are found even in Arakan.

v1.c16.20

What became eventually of the Eastern Chālukya line? The kingdom of Vengi of course disappeared under the Chola supremacy. Some later Chālukyas, however, still ruled there. They claimed descent from the child son of Amma I who was set aside by Tādapa. He was not killed and he grew somewhere and had many generations after him. The last Malla Vishnuvardhana has left an inscription dated 1202 A. D. Some Chālukya kings or chiefs are found in the west to the south of the Tungabhadrā also.

v1.c16.21

∗ The relevent portion in the Chellur grant may be quoted here. Speaking of the original founder of the Chālukya race viz. विष्णुवर्धन who was born an orphan of the हारिती queen it is said “ स च मात्रा विदितवृत्तान्तः सन् निर्गत्य चलुक्यागिरौ नंदाभगवतीं गौरी-माराध्य. कुमारनारायणमातृगणांश्च सन्तर्प्य श्वेतातपत्रैकशङ्ख पञ्चमहाशब्द पालिकेतन प्रतिढक्का वराह लाञ्छन पिच्छकुन्त सिंहासन मकरतोरण कनकदण्ड गङ्गायमुनादीनि स्वकुलक्रमागतानिनिक्षिप्तानि-साम्राज्याचिन्हानि समादाय कडम्बगङ्गादि भूमिपान्निर्जित्य सेतुनर्मदामध्ये सार्धसतलक्षं दक्षिणपथं पालयामास. (S. I. In. Hultsch Vol. I p. 54).

Eastern Chālukya Pedigree.

v1.c16.s1.1

( As given by Hultsch in South Ind. Ins. Vol. I p. 32 and with the other dates as proposed by Dr. Fleet Ind. Ant. Vol. XX p. 12 and 283. )

I

v1.c16.s2.1

Ś. 489-567 A. D.—Kīrtivarman (Western Chālukya)

v1.c16.s2.2

Satyāśraya Pulakeshin II the great Western Chālukya of 610 A. D. or 532 śaka

v1.c16.s2.3

1 Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana 18 years, 526-544 śaka (H.) 538-556 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.4

2 Jayasiṃha I 33 yrs. śaka 544-577 (H.) 30 yrs. 556-585 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.5

3 Indrarāja 6 months only

v1.c16.s2.6

4 Viṣṇuvardhana II, 9 yrs. 577-586 śaka (H.) 585-594 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.7

5 Maṅgi Yuvarāja, 25 yrs. 586-611 śaka (H.) 595-619 śaka (F,)

v1.c16.s2.8

6 Jayasiṃha II 13 yrs. 611-624 śaka (H.) or 619-632 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.9

8 Viṣṇuvardhana III 37 yrs. 625-662 śaka (H.) or 632-669 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.10

7 Kokkili, 6 months 625 śaka (H.) 632 śaka (F.) or 703 A. D. (H.) 709 A. D. (F.)

v1.c16.s2.11

9 Vijayāditya I Bhaṭṭāraka 18 yrs. 662-680 śaka (H.) or 669-687 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.12

10 Viṣṇuvardhana IV 36 yrs. 680-796 śaka (H.) or 687-722 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.13

11 Vijayāditya II alias Narendra Mṛigarāja 48 yrs. 716-764 śaka (H.) or 44 yrs. 722-766 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.14

12 Kaliviṣṇuvardhana V 1½ yrs. 764-766 śaka (H.) or 766-67 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.15

13 Guṇaka Vijayāditya III 44 yrs. 766-809 śaka (H. or 767-811 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.16

Yuvarāja Vikramāditya

v1.c16.s2.17

Yudhāmalla

v1.c16.s2.18

18 Tādapa one month 848 śaka

v1.c16.s2.19

14 Chālukya Bhīma Droharjuna 30 yrs, 809-839 śaka (H.) or 811-841 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.20

21 Yudhāmalla 7 yrs. 848-855

v1.c16.s2.21

15 Vijayāditya IV Kollabhigaṇḍa or Kaliyarttyanka 6 months śaka 840 (H.) or 841 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.22

19 Vikramāditya 1 yr. 847-848 śaka (H.) 849 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.23

16 Amma I Viṣṇuvardhana VI alias Raj Mahendra 7 yrs. 840-847 śaka (H.) or 841-848 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.24

22 Chālukya Bhīma II Vish. III Gauḍa Mahendra; son of queen Melambā 12 yrs. 855-867 śaka (H.)

v1.c16.s2.25

17 Vijayāditya & Beta child set aside by Tādapa 848 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.26

20 Bhīma

v1.c16.s2.27

24 Dānārnava or Dananripa 3 yrs. 892-895 śaka (H.)

v1.c16.s2.28

23 Amma II Vijayāditya son of q. Loka Mahādevī 25 yrs. 867-892 śaka (H.)

v1.c16.s2.29

Interregnum for 27 years.

v1.c16.s2.30

Here ends the first section so to speak of the Eastern Chālukya pedigree, a section which is essentially Deccani or Mahārāshtri or rather Kannada Marātha. The date of the coronation of Amma II is distinctly given in one grant of his and it is Śaka 867 Marga. V. 13 Friday etc. which corresponds with Friday 5th Dec. 945 A. D. (Fleet Ind. Ant. Vol. XX p. 271).

v1.c16.s2.31

We now go on to the second section of the Pedigree.

v1.c16.s2.32

II

v1.c16.s2.33

24 Dānārṇava

v1.c16.s2.34

Interregnum for 27 years

v1.c16.s2.35

25 Saktivarman or Chālukya Chandra 26 Vimalāditya m. Sundarā 12 yrs. 925-937 śaka (H.) 926-938 śaka (F.) sister of Rajendra Choda of Suryavamśa 7 yrs. 937-944 śaka (H.) 938-945 śaka (F.)

v1.c16.s2.36

27 Rājarāja I Vishnuv. VIII 28 Vijayāditya VII received m. Ammanga Devid of Rajendra Choda Vengi from Rajendra Choda 44 yrs. 944-985 śaka (H.) 954-986 śaka (F.) his nephew 15 yrs.

v1.c16.s2.37

| 985-1000 śaka (H.)

v1.c16.s2.38

Rajendra Choda or Kullottungadeva ascended Choda throne at Kānchi m. Madhurāntaki d. of Rajendra Choda gave Vengi to his uncle No. 28 (41 yrs. 986-1035)

v1.c16.s2.40

Vikrama Choda 29 Rājarāja II 30 Vira Choda, in the Choda kingdom 1 yr. 1000-1001 śaka (H.) Vishnuv. IX (ascended the throne in śaka 1001) a grant in his 21st year (1022 śaka) is found.

v1.c16.s2.41

In the Chellur grant the coronation exact date of (30) Virachoda is given as Śaka 1001 Bhādrapada Vadya 13, Thursday corresponding to 23 August 1078 A. D. Thursday (Fleet Ind. Ant. Vol. XX page 284). The coronation date of Rājarāja the first is also given in a grant of his and is equivalent to 16th August 1022 A. D.*

v1.c16.s2.42

∗ The kings with Christian era dates for the end of each reign may be given as follows from Fleet's paper Ind. Ant. XX p. 283 :—

v1.c16.s2.43

| 1 | Viṣṇuvardhana | ... 633 A. D. | 14 | Chālukya Bhīma | ... 918 A. D. |
| 2 | Jayasiṅha | ... 663 ,, | 15 | Kollabigaṇḍa Vijayā- | |
| 3 | Indrarāja | ... 663 ,, | | ditya IV | ... 918 ,, |
| 4 | Viṣṇuvardhana II | ... 672 ,, | 16 | Amma I Viṣṇuv. VI. | 925 ,, |
| 5 | Maṅgi Yuvarāja | ... 696 ,, | 17 | Beṭa, Vijayāditya V | ... 925 ,, |
| 6 | Jayasiṅha II | ... 709 ,, | 18 | Tādapa | ... 925 ,, |
| 7 | Kokkili | ... 709 ,, | 19 | Vikramāditya II | ... 926 ,, |
| 8 | Viṣṇuvardhana III | ... 746 ,, | 20 | Bhīma III | ... 927 ,, |
| 9 | Vijayāditya I | ... 764 ,, | 21 | Yudhāmalla | ... 934 ,, |
| 10 | Viṣṇuvardhana IV | ... 799 ,, | 22 | Amma II Vija. VI | ... 970 ,, |
| 11 | Narendra Mrigarāja | | 23 | Dānārṇava | ... 973 ,, |
| | or Vijayāditya II | ... 843 ,, | | Interregnum for 30 | yrs. 1003 ,, |
| 12 | Kaliviṣṇu. | ... 844 ,, | 24 | Saktivarma | ... 1015 ,, |
| 13 | Guṇaka Vijayāditya III | 888 ,, | | | |

I.—The Chandravamśa Pedigree in Later Chālukya Grants.

v1.c16.s3.1

The Ranastipundi grant of Vimalāditya (Ep. Ind. Vol. VI p. 351) gives the Chandravamśa as follows: I (1) Brahmā (2) Mānasa son अत्रि (3) Moon (4) बुध (5) पुरूरवा (6) आयु (7) नहुष (8) ययाति चक्रवर्ती वंशकर्ता (9) पूरुचक्रवर्ती (10) जनमेजयाश्वमेधत्रितयस्य कर्ता (11) प्राचीश (12) सैन्ययाति (13) हयपति (14) सार्वभौम (15) जयसेन (16) महाभौम (17) ऐशानक (18) क्रोधानन (19) देवाकि (20) रिचुक्र (21) ऋक्षक (22) मतिनार मत्रयागयाजी सरस्वतीनदीनाथः (23) कात्यायन (24) नील (25) दुष्यन्त (26) भरत गंगायमुनातीरे यद्विच्छिन्नं निखाय यूपान्। कृत्वा तथाश्वमेधान् नाम महाकमे भरल धितियोलभत (27) भुमन्यु (28) सुहोत्र (29) हस्ती (30) विगेचन (31) अजमीढ (32) संवरण from तपनसुता तपती (33) सुधन्वा (34) परीक्षित (35) भीमसेन (36) प्रदीपन् (37) शन्तनु (38) विचित्रवीर्य (39) पाण्डु (40) five sons and अर्जुन praised (41) अभिमन्यु (42) परिक्षित (43) जनमेजया (44) क्षेमुक (45) नरवाहन (46) शतानीक (47) उदयन. II ततःपर तत्प्रभृतिष्वविच्छिन्नसन्तानेष्वयोध्यासिंहासनेष्वेकोनषष्टि चक्रवर्तिषु गतेषु तद्वंश्यो विजयादित्यो नाम etc.

v1.c16.s3.2

Now comparing this list with that given in the Mahābhārata we find many names common. But there are some material differences. They are as follows:- Mbh. Ch. 95 gives the line with मनु-इला-पुरूरवा. From him we have आयु-नहुष-ययाति-पुरु. The line then goes to जनमेजया who performed three अश्वमेध. This makes जनमेजया the same as that of the शतपथ but this is a mistake; for the जनमेजया of शतपथ who performed three अश्वमेध is पारीक्षितजनमेजया; while this जनमेजया is son of पुरु. From जनमेजया, we have प्राचिन्वान्-संयाति-अहंयाति. (The सैन्ययाति and हयपति of the inscription are perhaps a mistake of reading). Then we have सार्वभौम-जयसेन-अवाचीन-अरिह-महाभौम.--(In the inscription अवाचीन and अरिह are omitted). Then we have अयुतनायि-अक्रोधन-देवातिथि-अरिह-ऋक्षक-मतिनार (for the first four we have ऐशानक-क्रोधानन, देवाकि and रिचुक्र which does not appear to be a mistake of reading). मतिनार marrying सरस्वती is also mentioned in both. Then we have तंसु-इली-दुष्यन्त-भरत. (Here we have कात्यायन and नील instead of the first two). Bharata performing अश्वमेध on the banks of the Yamunā and the Ganges is mentioned in both and is the story of the शतपथ repeated. From भरत we have भुमन्यु-सुहोत्र-हास्ति-विकुण्ठन-अजमीढ-संवरण-कुरु. (Here we have nearly the same names but strangely there is no कुरु in the inscription). From कुरु we have विडर-अनश्वा-पारिक्षित्-भीमसेन-प्रतीप-शंतनु. (If we take कुरु to be सुधन्वा we have two omitted here विडर and अनश्वा). From शंतनु we have विचित्रवीर्य-पाण्डु-अर्जुन-अभिमन्यु-परीक्षित-जनमेजय. (The names in both are the same). From here there is complete divergence. Mbh. gives जनमेजय शतानीक-अश्वमेधदत्त; while the inscription gives जन०-क्षेमुक-नरवाहन-शतानीक. And from शतानीक the line goes at once to उदयन of the 6th century a contemporary perhaps of बुद्ध, the famous king of कथासरित्सागर whose minister was यौगन्धरायण and who carried away वासवदत्ता daughter of प्रद्योत king of Ujjain. Whence is this genealogy given in the 10th century derived? Of course the difference from Mbh. is not strange. Some Purāṇa must have been followed: which we cannot yet say.

II—Āndhra.

v1.c16.s4.1

Who were the Āndhras? Where was the Āndhra country? These questions are interesting and we proceed to solve them. The Āndhras were a well-known ancient people, different from the Dravidas in the days of the last recasting of the Mahābhārata i. e. about 300 B. C. Moreover in the Mahābhārata Bhīshma parva list of Indian peoples, they are mentioned in the north under the Aryan and mixed Aryan peoples and not among the mlechhas of the south such as Dravida, Kerala, Chola etc. We therefore take it that in 300 B. C. Āndhra had come entirely under Aryan influence while the territory south of the Krishna had not. Āndhra is now looked upon as the territory on the east coast between the Godāvari and the Krishnā. But in Mahābhārata days it denoted the country above the Eastern Ghats. Aryans appear to have settled in it from Kośala or Nagpur and Raipur. Kalinga was also early Aryanised and it may be possible that the Aryans went into Āndhra from Kalinga; but we prefer to hold that the Aryans penetrated into the Āndhra (Warangal) country from Kośala as there is no mountain to cross here. Now Āndhra even in Hiuen Tsang's days was the name of the country above the Eastern Ghats and the Vengi country tract along the coast between the Godāvari and the Krishnā is called by him Dhanakataka (Amaraoti). In short Vengi is distinct from Trikalinga.

v1.c16.s4.2

Having shown that Āndhra was always the country above the Ghats, we may state that the Āndhra people were principally Aryans Even now the ethnographical characteristics of the Āndhra people Brahmins and Kshatriyas are distinctly Aryan. The Brahmins of Āndhra or Telangana still continue marriage relations with the Brahmins of the Deccan and hence they must have been one with the Deccan people. The Āndhra kings who became powerful and conquered Pataliputra appear to us to be thus mixed Aryans and not Dravidians and they conquered Paithan and Mahārāshtra also. Their capital is said to be Dhana-kataka, which country too must have been conquered by them and hence its eventual inclusion in the Āndhra territory. We have therefore distinguished the Āndhras from the southern Dravidas and we hold that they were more Aryan than the latter, i.e. not only the Brahmins, but the middle class peoples also in Āndhra were mixed Aryans.

v1.c16.s4.3

The Āndhras developed a fine literature of their own under the Eastern Chālukya patronage and their ancient work, "The translation of the Mahābhārata" in Telugu is dated the 10th Century A. D. and is said to be highly poetical. Like the Tamils of the further south, the Āndhras too distinguished themselves for learning and even now the Āndhra Brahmins are learned Vaidikas. They are usually Śaivas and rarely Vaishnavas a circumstance which we shall try to explain later on. What language these Āndhras originally spoke we discuss in the next note.

III—Aryan Advance into South India.

v1.c16.s5.1

India to the south of the Nerbudda divides itself into two natural portions the first consisting of Berar, the Nizam State and the Bombay Deccan; and the second consisting of what is practically the present Madras Presidency. The former is usually called the Deccan while the latter is called south India. The language in the first is generally Marathi with the exception of Āndhra in the south-east and of the Southern Maratha country in the south-west. The Deccan, as we have shown, was originally sparsely populated by aboriginies and hence the Aryan invaders who settled the country gave their language to it. Did the Aryans advance into Āndhra and the Kanarese portions and into the country southwards of both? Did they advance in sufficient numbers so as to impress their language upon the people? If so, does not their language now prevail there? We will try to answer these questions in this note as there seems to be a great deal of haziness on this subject.

v1.c16.s5.2

The Pāndyas are the southern-most Indian people throughout ancient Indian literature. They were known to Megasthenes whose account of them shows that they were believed to be mixed Aryans and Dravidians. We may, therefore, believe that the Aryans in small numbers did go right upto Cape Comorin sometime before Buddha and impressed their religious thought, not their language, upon the people. The Pāndyas are frequently mentioned in the Mahābhārata, but their name does not, strangely enough, occur in the Bhishmaparva list of Indian peoples. Probably their name is given as Dravida which heads the list of the southern mlechhas and the Pāndyas were unquestionably Dravidas par excellence.

v1.c16.s5.3

The Aryan settlement of the Deccan took place after this and in sufficient numbers so as to impress not only the Aryan religion but also the Aryan language upon the few people who were there. And this advance torn place probably after Buddha but before Megasthenes. For the Mahābhārata which we place about 250 B. C. includes all the people in the Deccan in the list of northern peoples described as Aryans and mixed Aryans. Even Āndhra and Kuntala are in this list besides Mahārāshtra proper which is covered by Vidharbha, Aśmaka, Pāndurāshtra, Goparāshtra and Mallarāshtra. We believe that the people in Āndhra and in Kuntala who at present speak the Telagu and the Kanarese spoke then the Prakrit Aryan language as we shall presently show. We take it that this advance took place after Buddha because we find many persons, specially the common people, professing the Buddhistic faith.

v1.c16.s5.4

In the days of Bindusāra son of Chandragupta the Aryans made conquests further south and established principalities as far as the Pennar in the east and the northern boundary of the present Mysore state in the west. Mr. Krishnasvami Aiyangar following and agreeing with Sir Vincent Smith says in his ‘Beginnings of South Indian History’

v1.c16.s5.5

recently published “The southern frontier of Aśoka’s empire may be described as a line drawn from the Pennar river near Nellore on the east coast to the river Kalyānapuri on the west coast (about N. Lat. 14) which forms the northern boundary of the Tuluva country probably representing the old country of the Satiyaputra. This boundary is substantially correct on the information furnished by epigraphy.” This correctness is confirmed, adds Mr. Krishnasvami, “by what we are able to glean from Tamil literary sources, except on the eastern point. The Tamils marked out the limit of the Tamil land at Pulikat” which is further south than Nellore. Thus from about 250 B. C. to the first century A. D. the age of Tamil poets, South India upto Pulikat a little above Madras on the east and to about Bhatkal on the west was under Aryan domination. A fresh attempt was made to push the Aryan settlement further south in the days of the Tamil poets themselves. It was defeated in the eastern portion near the Podyar Hill by the Pāṇḍyas but it was successful in the west where in Konkānam the territory of the chief Nannan, “in the first century of the Christian era was broken into by a new people called Kośar and Nannan was obviously defeated.” (S. Krishnasvami’s beginnings of South India p. 85). Thus Konkanam above and below the ghats came also under Aryan influence in the first century A. D.

v1.c16.s5.6

Now what will be a great surprise to many is that this part of South India not only came under the sway of the Aryan people but also under the influence of the Aryan language. It seems clear from the old Tamil poets that the language of this part of South India was Aryan The Tamil poets of the first century A. D. not only describe this part as Vadukarmana, end of the Northerners’ territory, but also call it Moli-peyartam, that is, the country where the spoken language changes to another. Ditto page 84. At page 95 ditto, we read that the new invaders were called in Tamil poems Vada Vadukar (the northern northerners) and Vamba Vadukars (or the new northerners). Further it is stated that the Malayaman chief of Muller defeated single-handed the Aryans that had laid siege to his fort. Finally in summing this chapter on Aryan invasion of South India, Mr. Krishnasvami Aiyangar says: “The Aryan invasion went along the western ghats avoiding Dandāraṇya as it is called by the Tamils. This inference is supported by the fact (1) that the Tamils regarded the land north of Pulikat as foreign in language and (2) their regarding the Dandāraṇya as the land of the Aryans. Again in the chapter on the Dawn of the Christian era he observes at page 128. “The northern frontier of the Tamil lands was held by Nannan of the Tullu country in the west and Pulli of Vengadam (Tirupati) in the east, further north being the land of the Aryas (Vadukars) and Dandāraṇya.” Thus it is clear from ancient Tamil literature that from about 250 B. C. to the first century A. D. South India as far as Pulikat in the east and Bhatkal in the west was under Aryan sway and spoke the Aryan language.

v1.c16.s5.7

This view of Mr. Krishnasvami Aiyangar is supported by epigraphic evidence. We find inscriptions in this part of the country recorded in Prakrit not only down to the first century A. D., but even to the third and the country was ruled by Kshatriyas who professed the Vedic religion. These kingdoms are given by Mr. Dubreuil in his work "Ancient History of the Deccan" just published. The first inscription on a stupa at Jagayyapetha (Krishna District) gives the name of a king called Mā-dhariputra Śrī Vīra Purushadatta of the Ikshvakus, in an alphabet which points to the 3rd century A. D." (p. 86). The inscription (Ind. Ant. XI p. 256) is in Prakrit. 2. The Dāvaṇagere inscription (Ep. Kar. Vol. XI No. 161) mentions a people called Kekayas who intermarried with the Ikshvākus. 3. The Bṛihatphalāyanas mentioned in an inscription of Jayavarman who ruled in Kudura (Krishna District again) are also Vedic Aryans. This inscription is in archaic Prakrit. "The language and phraseology of the inscription is so similar to the Nasik inscriptions of Gautamiputra Śātakarṇi and of Vashishtiputra Puḷamāyi that Jayavarman's date cannot have been distant from the date of these two Āndhra kings." (Ep. Ind. Vol. VII p. 315). 4. The next people are the Salankāyanas also a gotra name mentioned in an inscription found at Peddaveggi (Vengi). The plates of king Vīra Devavarman are in Prakrit also. (Ep. Ind. Vol. IX page 56). 5. The Viṣṇu Kundims are mentioned in the Ramatirtham grant (Ep. Ind. XI p. 134) and other records. This name is also a gotra name which has now disappeared from the list of gotras. (Gotras it is said in Dharmaśāstra are innumerable and many gotras have disappeared.) 6. The early Pallavas also have left records in Prakrit as we have shown in the body of the book. Lastly 7. the Kadambas of Vanavāsi have also left early records which are in Prakrit. These records prove that Kshatriya Aryans ruled in the frontier of the Tamil land and spoke an Aryan language viz. Prakrit at least in the higher ranks, viz. the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaiśyas.

v1.c16.s5.8

The point we have further to urge is that these Aryan-Brahmins and Kshatriyas were allied to the Deccan Aryans i. e. the ancestors of the Marathas of the modern day. Not only do these Aryans i. e. Brahmins of Āndhra and Kanara intermarry with the Brahmins of the Deccan but we find from an inspection of these Prakrit records that the language therein used is allied to the Mahārāshtrī. Thus the inscription at Jagayyapetha mentions Kamakaraṭhe the Raṭra or Rāshtra of Kamaha. The word Rāshṭra belongs to the Mahārāshtras and points to this king being a Maratha Kshatriya. Again the word Apaṇo instead of Attaṇo (Sans. Ātmano) is the Marathi word Apaṇa. So again the inscription of the Bṛihatphalāyana Jayavarman uses the expression खंडरुजस for Sanskrit स्कंदरुद्रायस्य which is plainly Marathi. Here we have the Marathi word खंडोबा for स्कंद and the word अज for आर्य is not modern Telagu which uses अय्या but is plainly the parent of the Marathi आजा. The inscriptions lastly of the Pallavas and the Kadambas about this time viz. the first to the 3rd century A. D. are in Prakrit and the representatives of these are plainly the modern Maratha families Pālave and Kadam.

v1.c16.s5.9

The Prakrit inscription of the Kadambas on the Malavalli pillar especially leaves no doubt that Mahārāshtri must have been spoken so far south as the northern part of the present state of Mysore. On this inscription Mr. Rice at page 6 of his introduction to the Ep. Karna. Vol. VII observes: "From the script, style and situation of this inscription and the relationship of the donee, it is evidently not removed very far in time from the first inscription of Sātakarṇi which precedes it. I have therefore marked its date as 250 A. D. The Prakrit employed is the Mahārāshtarī form, and Dr. Buhler considered the inscription as evidence that this was already at that time a cultivated language in the south." Thus inscriptions indubitably prove that the Mahārāshtri in a cultivated form was spoken in the country now the home of Kanarese. This is not to be wondered at as this part of the country was ruled by Mahārathis in the days of the Sātakarṇis and the Kadambas. Even coins bearing the legend in Prakrit सडकण कळळाय महारठिस have been found in the west of Chitaldurg Mysore State. Not only this, tradition as recorded in the Harivamśa shows that the kingdom of Banavāsi was originally founded by a son of Yadu from a Nāga wife and Banavasi is described in the Harivamśa as situated in a forest with red soil about it Banavasi is plainly the modern Kanarese country. Thus the country was settled by Mahārathis and was ruled by Mahārathis down to the days of Kadambas. It seems probable that after their rule the language changed into Kanarese under the rule of the Gangas.

v1.c16.s5.10

All these facts are also admitted and recorded by V. Kanakasabhai in his "Tamils 1800 years ago." At page 29 he observes that the northern limit of Tamilicam was on the east Verkadu or Pulikat and that beyond was the country of the Vadukas. The King of Erami Nadu was also called the chief of the Vadukars. It is evident therefore that at this early period the people north of Tirupati and those who resided in Mysore (north) spoke one and the same language Vaduki. The Kanarese and the Āndhras thus in those ancient days spoke according to our view a northern language which was Mahārāshtri and were also related to the Mahārathis of the Deccan. The Nāyaks and the Reddis are descended from ancestors allied in race and language to the ancestors of the Marathas. The name Vadukar is even now applied to these and though Dr. Caldwell says that Vaduki meant old Telagu, the older language of the Vadukars and the Āndhras must have been an Aryan language. Mr. S. Krishnasvami Aiyangar expresses his opinion in connection with this subject as follows: "I have no doubt that the Āndhras of the Mahāraṭṭa country were spoken of by the Tamils as Aryans. That would only confirm the present day notion that the language Marathi is itself called Aryan."

Linked texts (13)