South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

especially peculiar to the Chāḷukyas, the other name being Vishṇuvardhana.^[1] And even among the Eastern Chāḷukyas the name of Vijayāditya as the founder of the dynasty was altogether unknown until the time of Vimalāditya. In view of these facts, it is not possible to accept Vijayāditya as a historical person and regard him as the founder of the Chāḷukya family.

(b) The historical section of the genealogy constitutes a family chronicle in which are embodied the most outstanding events of the Eastern Chāḷukya history. The history of the Eastern Chāḷukyas is traced from Kubja-Vishṇuvardhana to Rājarāja I. It is practically indentical with similar accounts found elsewhere. There is, however, a small variation with regard to a minor detail which may be noted here. In this as well as in the Kōrumelli grant, in the description of the succession of early kings from Kubja-Vishṇuvardhana and Jayasiṁha, we have tad-anuj-ēndra-rāja-nandanas=sapta dināni (line 33)^[2] instead of the usual tad-anuj-ēndrarājas=sapta dināni.

The genealogical account, as embodied in the present charter, discloses certain facts about Rājarāja’s reign, unknown from other sources. It refers, no doubt, like the Kōrumelli and the Nandampūṇḍi grants to Vimalāditya’s marriage with Kundavvai and the birth of a son to them called Rājarāja as well as the coronation of the latter in Śaka 944 (expired) on Thursday ba, di. 2, Uttarābhādra, when the sun was in the sign of the lion (lines 50-51, 53-55). The new information found is that Rājarāja, when still a boy, was invested with the necklace (kaṇṭhikā), the insignia of the office of yuvarāja (lines 52-53) ; and that his uncle, the Chōḷa emperor Rājēndra-Chōḍa Madhurāntaka, having heard of his great qualities, bestowed on him with affection the hand of his daughter, the princess Ammaṅgā, who became his chief queen (lines 62-64). In this connection occurs an elaborate description of the greatness of the Chōḷa emperor, his supremacy over the kings on the earth, and the extent of the dominion subject to his authority (lines 56-62). The stanzas beginning with the words, ēkasy=āsīd=api sa Himavān and Sa-dvīpāṁ chatur-aṁburāśi-parikhāṁ (lines 58-62), probably allude to Rājēndra-Chōḷa’s Gangetic expedition and his transmarine conquests respectively.

Thus, four important events of Rājarāja’s life are mentioned here : (i) his birth, (ii) investiture as yuvarāja, (iii) coronation, and (iv) marriage.
(i) The date of his birth is not known.
(ii) The investiture of Rājarāja as yuvarāja must have taken place duly without any obstacle.
(iii) His coronation, however, does not seem to have been performed without obstruction. For the date of this event which is stated to have taken place according to the present inscription in Śaka 944, Bhādrapada, ba. di. 2, Guruvāra, corresponding to 16th August, 1022 A.C.,^[3] is nearly four years later than the last date, i.e., 1018 A.C., August, of his father and predecessor Vimalāditya.^[4] This reveals a gap of four years in the Eastern Chāḷukya chronology between the close of Vimalāditya’s reign and the coronation of Rājarāja I, and the events of this interval are by no means clear. Several scholars who have attempted to bridge up the gap have been at great pains to

_________________________________________________

^[1] Ind. Ant. Vol. XVI, p. 21. Samastabhuvanāśraya-Sarvvalōkāśraya-Vishṇuvardhana-Vijayādity-ādi-viśēsha-nāmnāṁrāja-ratnānām=udbhava-bhūmiḥ. It may be noted that these two names are alternately assumed by the Eastern Chālukya kings and it may be suggested that these names were assumed at the time of coronation.
^[2] Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 52, 1. 37.
^[3] The date is corroborated by his Kōrumelli and the Nandampūṇḍi grants ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 53 ; above, Vol. IV, F. 307.
^[4] Above, Vol. VI pp. 358, 361. According to the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant, Vimalāditya, the father of Rājarāja I, was crowned on 10th May. 1011 A.C., and as this inscription is dated in the Siṁha month of his 8th regnal year, corresponding to August, 1018 A.C., he must have been ruling until this date. How long his rule lasted subsequent to this date it is difficult to discover ; but since in all the records of his successors a period of seven years (reckoned in round numbers) is invariably assigned to his reign, he must have died before the end of his 8th regnal year.