South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

BILAIGARH PLATES OF KALACHURI PRATAPAMALLA ;
YEAR 969

and calculating with 247-48 A.C. as the starting point of the era, the lunar eclipse occurred on the fullmoon day of Āshāḍha in 1218 A.C., corresponding to July 9, Monday. This appears to be the date of the record. We may, however, note that the lunar eclipse took place also on the fullmoon day of Āshāḍha in 1219 A.C., corresponding to June 29, Saturday. The present charter is dated four years later than the Pēṇḍrābandh epigraph, thus extending the reign period of Pratāpamalla up to 1218 A.C.

Before we proceed to other details, it seems necessary to examine a few facts connected with the history of these Kalachuris, not adequately noticed by scholars. One is the place allotted to Pṛithvīdēva III in the genealogical account of the family. In his Dynastic History of Northern India^[1] Dr. H. C. Ray postulates that Ratnadēva III was succeeded by Pṛithvīdēva III. The only basis for this assumption is the Ratanpur inscription.^[2] In this record three generations of kings are mentioned, viz., Jājalladēva, his son who might be Ratnadēva who defeated Chōḍagaṅga, and his son Pṛithvīdēva. The characteristic achievement of vanquishing Chōḍagaṅga is attributed in all the records of the family to Ratnadēva II, father of Pṛithvīdēva II. From this it becomes explicit that Pṛithvīdēva of the Ratanpur record is identical with Pṛithvīdēva II and that no grounds exist for the assumption of a Pṛithvīdēva III. The subsequent history of the family as known from other epigraphs,^[3] reveals that Pṛithvīdēva II was followed by his younger son Jājalladēva II. After a short while the rulership passed on to Jājalladēva II’s elder brother Jagaddēva. The latter was in turn succeeded by Ratnadēva III and grandson Pratāpamalla. Thus we are justified in discountenancing the existence of Pṛithvīdēva III.

Dr. Ray tries to support the above view of his by saying that the date of the Ratanpur inscription agrees with the ascription of the epigraph to Pṛithvīdēva III. This argument is fallacious ; for, the date which is taken to be Vikrama Saṁvat 1247, as read by its editor, the late Dr. Kielhorn, is itself doubtful and his observations^[4] on the same reveal that the record might have been originally dated in the Chēdi era, the first digit of which was 9. As a good number of inscriptions of Pṛithvīdēva II with dates ranging from the Chēdi year 900 to 915, has been discovered,^[5] there should be no difficulty in assigning the Ratanpur epigraph to his reign. Another consideration that has obviously persuaded Dr. Ray to assign the Ratanpur record to Pṛithvīdēva III, is the chronological position of its composer. This was Dēvagaṇa^[6], son of Ratnasiṁha and grandson of Māmē. Now it might be that this same Ratnasiṁha was the composer of the Malhār inscription^[7] of Jājalladēva II dated 919 of the Chēdi era. Ascription of the Ratanpur inscription to Pṛithvīdēva II would lead to the result that whereas Dēvagaṇa, the son, drafted the record of the king who was the father, Ratnasiṁha, his father, composed the charter of the king who was the son. This superficial anomaly can be explained away by pointing out that there exists a difference of only four years between the

_________________________________________________

^[1] Vol. II (1936), pp. 813-14. The same view appears to have been held by other scholars also, though not without diffidence ; compare Bhandarkar’s List of Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 421 and the genealogical statement on p. 393. It must, however, be noted that in his article on the ‘ History of the Kalachuris of Southern Kosala,’ Mr. Amalananda Ghosh has shown that Pṛithvīdēva of the Ratanpur inscription was Pṛithvīdēva II, and not Pṛihvīdēva III ; Ācārya Puspāñjali, pp. 274-75.
^[2] Above, Vol. I, pp. 45 ff.
^[3] Ibid., p. 40 ; Vol. XXI, p. 762, etc.
^[4] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 49, n. 41.
^[5] Bhandarkar’s List, Nos. 1234, 1236, etc.
^[6] We may incidentally note the title Rāyarasiṁha of Dēvagaṇa’s son, Jagatsiṁha ; above, Vol. I, p. 51. This is influenced by Kannaḍa. A study of the inscriptions of the period shows that a good many titles of similar origin from Karṇāṭaka were adopted and exhibited by distinguished persons in other parts of India.
^[7] Above, Vol. I, pp. 39 ff.