South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

NOTE ON THE SALEM PLATES OF GANGA SRIPURUSHA.

G. S. GAI, OOTACAMUND

get four generations of these Rāshṭrakūṭa prices from Nannappa to Indarāja who seem to have ruled in Northern Karnataka in a feudatory capacity under the imperial Chālukyas.

The Salem record states that Gōvindarāja’s daughter Kañchiyabbā was the wife of Duggamāra, son of the Gaṅga king Śrīpurusha. It is quite possible that this matrimonial relationship between the Western Gaṅgas and this Rāshṭrakūṭa family was brought about through the influence of the Chālukyas ; for, according to our identification, Kañchiyabbā was the granddaughter of Vikramāditya II through his daughter Vinayavatī, married to Gōvindarāja.

Dr. Altekar has shown that it is not possible to connect Gōvindarāja and his father Śivarāja of the Narwan plates either with the ancestors of Dantidurga of the main Rāshṭrakūṭa line or with the predecessors of Karka II of the Antroli-Chharoli record.^[1] I have pointed out the difficulties in identifying Śivarāja’s father Nannappa of the Salem plates with his namesake mentioned in the Tiwarkhed, Multai and Daulatabad plates.^[2] Prof. Mirashi has tried to show the existence of a ruling family called Rāshṭrakūṭas of Mānapura in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. in the area known as Southern Maratha

>

country, with Satara District as headquarters.^[3] He has also suggested that following the defeat of Gōvinda, supposed to be a prince of the Rāshṭrakūṭa family, at the hands of Pulakēśin II on the north of the Bhīmarathī, as stated in the Aihoḷe praśasti,^[4] the Rāshṭrakūṭas appear to have moved to Berar where they founded a principality with Achalapura as their capital.^[5] Yet we are not in a position to establish any connection between any of these rules and the family of Nannappa of the Salem record. It may, however, be possible to assume that this Nannappa might have been a grandson of Nannarāja of the Tiwarkhed plates,^[6] though they would be separated from each other by about 70 years. But there is one difficulty in the supposition. Nannarāja of the Tiwarkhed plates belonged to Achalapura in Berar whereas the Nannappa and his descendants were supposed to be ruling in Northern Karnataka, in portions of Satara and Ratnagiri Districts. In such case, we will have to assume that one of these Rāshṭrakūṭas migrated again to their earlier home in Northern Karnataka. Another possibility is that Nannappa and his line of the Salem plates belonged to an altogether different branch of the Rāshṭrakūṭas. And Gōvindarāja and his son Indarāja of this family, instead of joining hands with Dantidurga and his uncle Kṛishṇa I in overthrowing the Chālukyas, perhaps actually opposed them on behalf of the Chālukyas with whom they were matrimonially connected. In this encounter, the Western Gaṅga king Śrīpurusha might have also lent his support on the side of the Chālukyas and their Rāshṭrakūṭa allies, since he was interested in them. Probably to avenge this act of Śrīpurusha the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Kṛishṇa I invaded Gaṅgavāḍi and encamped at Maṇṇe in the Mysore State, from where he issued his Talegaon plates in A.D. 768.^[7] In this connection we may note that the Salem plates of A.D. 771 announce the death of Indarāja, son of Gōvindarāja, which seems to have taken place only a few years prior to the date of that record. We must, however, say that these are only suggestions about the probable course of events and, of course, they are to be confirmed or modified in the light of future discoveries.

_____________________

^[1] The Rāshṭrakūṭas and Their Times, p. 15.
^[2] Above, p. 147 and note.
^[3] Annals, Bhandarkar Or. Res. Inst., Vol. XXV, pp. 39-46 ; Dr. Altekar, however, does not subscribe to this view ; ibid, Vol. XXIV, pp. 149-55.
^[4] Above, Vol. VI, p. 5.
^[5] ABORI, Vol. XXV, p. 47.
^[6] Prof. Mirashi’s latest view is that the Tiwarkhed plates are spurious while the Multai record is genuine
(See Ind. Hist. Quart., Vol. XXV, pp. 138-43). I have already shown that Nannappa and Nannarāja of the Salem and Muliai records respectively would be contemporaries (above, p. 147 note).
^[7] Above, Vol. XIII, p. 280.