South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

epithet and surnames of Sarvalōkāśraya. Rājamahēndra and Vishṇuvardhana. Besides, it calls him Gaṇḍaragaṇḍa, which may be treated as an additional epithet. Describing Chālukya- Bhīma I, the inscription speaks of his victory over his enemies. In like manner it praises Vijayāditya IV for his liberality. In the case of Amma I, prominence is given to his subduing his dāyādas^[1] whereby his collaterals are meant.

A more important point worth noting is, however, the fact that in the present inscription Amma I assumes the full imperial titles of Mahārājādhirāja Paramēśvara Paramabhaṭṭāraka, whereas in the other three charters of his, he styles himself simply Mahārāja. This shows that by the time of the present inscription Amma I had acquired more authority possibly through subjugating his adversaries. Incidentally it is also proved hereby that the present is the latest of all the four known charters of Amma I. And from this it follows that Amma I’s son Vijayāditya V must have been only a baby at the time of his accession.^[2]

The present inscription further describes Amma I as Paramamāhēśvara, also for the first time. His son, who is called here Vijayāḍitya, is also known as Bēta, which is but a contraction of Vijayāditya itself.^[3]

Apart from the information inferred in the foregoing paragraphs, the inscription does not furnish us with any new historical data. According to the chronology of the Eastern Chālukya kings fixed by Fleet, Amma I reigned from September A. D. 918 to August A. D. 925. Lately some scholars have re-examined the chronology, arriving at slightly different results.^[4]

It is known from other records that Vijayāditya V reigned for one fortnight and was afterwards ejected by Tāḍapa. Later, it is said, he founded ‘a separate line of descent, which subsequently came to hold the Vēṅgī country again’.^[5]

The composer of the present record is stated to be one BhaṭṭaMahākāla, son of Bhaṭṭa Niravadya. This Mahākāla is evidently a different person from Mahākāla, the donee in Amma I’s Masulipatam plates, who, as stated there,was a general of Chālukya-Bhīma I. The dūtaka, or the samājñāpti^[6]as he is called in the inscription, was the Kaṭakēśvara.^[7] The personal name of this official has not been mentioned.

_________________________________

^[1]The same fact is alluded to also in his Ēḍēru plates. See S. I. I., Vol. I, p. 40 text, ll. 38-40 ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 266, and n. 1.
^[2] It has naturally been presumed that it took Amma I some considerable length of time, say at least three years, to have his position fortified and finally declare himself Mahārājādhirāja Paramēśvara Paramabhaṭṭāraka. It is difficult to say as to how much time elapsed between one charter and another ; they might have followed in quick succession. However, according to the view that the expression sva-rājyābhishēka-kṛita-kalyāṇaḥ occurring in the description of Amma I in his Ēḍēru plates lends itself to the interpretation that the record ‘was issued during the coronation ceremony of the king’ (Ind. Hist. Quart.,Vol. XI, p. 32), the Ēḍēru plates may be placed first in the chronological order and held to have been issued in the very first year of Amma I’s reign
^[3] Fleet remarks that Bēta ‘was probably the original appellation bestowed at the naming ceremony after his birth ’ (Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 267).
^[4] See Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. IX, pp. 17 ff. ; J. A. H. R.. S.,Vol. IX, Part 4, pp. 1 ff. ; above, Vol. XXIV, pp. 269 f., etc.
^[5]Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 267.
^[6] The word samājñāpti is obviously meant to be the same as ājñāpti, the form with the preposition sam prefixed to it having been employed owing to the metrical exigency. Mr. C. R. Krishnamacharlu has offered an ingenious explanation of this term, ‘the agency that obtains the command (ājñā-āpti)’; see above Vol. XXIV, p. 303, n. 12. Nevertheless, ājñāpti is probably just an alternative form of the more familiar ājñapti. The former is derivable from the root jñā niyōgē. Its āis not shortened because it is, unlike other jñā and jñapa roots, not mit and as such it is not governed by Pāṇini’s rule mitāṁ hrasvaḥ (Ashṭādhyāyī, VI, 4, 92).
^[7] The usual designation is Kaṭakarāja. It is apparently again for metrical reasons that its equivalent Kaṭakēśvara has been used in the present record, as Kaṭakādhīśa elsewhere, though in another epigraph Kaṭakēśa is found use without any such necessity ; see Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 267, n. 5. We may render this title as ‘Governor of the Fort ’, as suggested by the term Durgapati used in an early record in a similar context ; see J. B. B. R. A. S, Vol. X, p. 365.