|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA the effect that the issuer was not a paramount ruler but one enjoying only a small status. This becomes evident from the fact that no titles of independent rulership like Mahārāja much less those of supreme lordship like Mahārājādhirāja or Paramabhaṭṭāraka are attached to the names of any one of these Rāshṭrakūṭa chiefs from the time of the first member of the line, viz., Durgarāja. The recently discovered Nagardhan Plates of Svāmirāja,[1] an earlier member of this line, also show that the issuer of that charter, Svāmirāja likewise does not assume any titles of independent rulership but actually describes himself as Bhaṭṭāraka-pādānuddhyātaḥ i.e., devoted to the feet of his lord (Bhaṭṭāraka). To whom then were Nannarāja and his ancestors of the present charter subordinate ? Prof. Mirashi[2] expressed the view that they were at first vassals of the Kalachuris and later, of the Chālukyas of Bādāmī who displaced the Kalachuris, and that Svāmirāja of the Nagardhan Plates was a Kalachuri vassal to start with. He also adopted the view, subject to revision, that Gōvinda, the adversary of Pulakēśin II mentioned in the Aihoḷe inscription (634-5 A.C.), was to be identified with Gōvindarāja, the grandfather of Nannarāja and that the Chālukya emperor reduced these Rāshṭrakūṭa chiefs to vassalage after his subjugation of Kalchuri Buddharāja and his acquisition of the Three Mahārāshṭrakas. In my opinion these conclusions can for the most part be sustained as shown below.
It is improbable that Gōvindarāja was a contemporary of Pulakēśīn II in or before 634-5 A.C. For, the earliest date for his grandson Nannarāja provided by the present record from Sangalooda is Śaka 615, i.e., 693 A.C. and as the latest date afforded for him by the Multai record is Śaka 631, i.e., 709 A.C. it is not unlikely that he started his reign earlier and that he succeeded his father even before 693 A.C., say about 680 A.C. Assuming further that his father Svāmikarāja had the usual reign of 25 years, i.e., from 655 to 680 A.C , the date assignable on the same reckoning of 25 years’ rule to Gōvindarāja would be 630-655 A.C. Thus he could have been a contemporary of Pulakēśin II in 634-5 A.C. Besides the reference to Gōvindarāja in the Aihoḷe praśasti there is another piece of evidence suggesting some Chālukya association with this Rāshṭrakūṭa family. Pulakēśin II is described as Nāgavardhana-pādānuddhyāta in one of the records of his collaterals ruling in the Nasik District.[3] This Nāgavardhana is believed to have been some preceptor of Pulakēśin II. Whether it was the name of his preceptor or favourite deity, what is worthy of note in this connection is that Nāgardhan or Nāgavardhana was the findspot of the grant of Svāmirāja and this place might have been named after a deity or a person called Nāgavardhana to whom Pulakēśin II was devoted. If this surmise is proved correct by more substantial evidence, it may just be possible that Pulakēśin II, in the course of his campaign upto the Rēvā and the Vindhyas,[4] passed through Nāgardhan, the capital of these Rāshṭrakūṭa chiefs and subdued them in the time of Gōvindarāja, sometime before 634-5 A.C. Since then the family might be supposed to have continued to be Chālukya vassals upto the time of the present charter, the script of which as noticed already, bears such close resemblance to some Chālukya records of the period, particularly the Nausārī Plates of Yuvarāja Śryāśraya-Śīlāditya[5], the Manor Plates of Vinayāditya Maṅgalarasa,[6] and the Añjanēri Plate of Tējavarman of the Hariśchandra family.[7] Besides, there is yet one more indication in the present grant to connect these chiefs with the Chālukyas politically. The donee of the charter is called Anivārita annasattra-pradāyin. It is well known _________________________________________________
[1] Above, Vol. XXVIII, p. 1 ff. and plate. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|