History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c16.13

Language: English

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).