|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA A.C.). Verse 29 of this inscription tells us that a ruler of the same family, whose name is lost, gave battle to Khoṭṭigadēva at Khalighaṭṭa on the bank of the Rēvā in the cause of Sīyaka and went to heave. Evidently, the same exploit is attributed to the Paramāra prince Kaṅkadēva of the same Naddūla family in the Arthūṇā inscription of Chāmuṇḍarāja,[1] verse 19 of which relates that Kaṅkadēva overthrew the army of the king of Karṇāṭa in battle on the bank of the Narmadā and in fighting on the side of Śrī-Harsha of Mālava died a hero’s death. It has been assumed by some writers[2] that Kaṅkadēva is identical with Chachcha and that it was this prince who fought against Rāshṭrakūṭa Khoṭṭiga on behalf of Paramāra Sīyaka II. It would seem that the facts narrated above with reference to several contemporary princes, including the fight at Khalighaṭṭa, were incidents of one and the same campaign, viz., the one undertaken by Khoṭṭiga against the Pratīhāra and other princes of the north, viz., the Chēdi, the Chandēlla and lastly the Paramāra who was his erstwhile feudatory. Kēsarin too may be supposed to have taken part in the expedition as can be deduced from the present Māser inscription. These events pertain to the reign of Khoṭṭiga and must have taken place before 972-3. A.C. As Māser where the present eulogistic inscription is found lies north-east of Khalighaṭṭa (modern Khalghat) on the Narmadā, it may be supposed that Khoṭṭiga was not halted at the Narmadā as a result of this battle but was able to proceed further north victoriously. Now, the Māser inscription, recounting as it does the exploits of a Rāshṭrakūṭa subordinate, must have been set up before Khoṭṭiga’s reign came to an end, i.e., before 972-3 A.C., as after this date the chances of a Rāshṭrakūṭa subordinate setting up an inscription so far north would be very remote, the area having come under the rule of the Paramāras by this date.
The mention of Muñja (Muñjōrvvīpa) in this record, assigned as it has been done to a date before 972-3 A.C., would lead to the conclusion that he had already become king in succession to Sīyaka II by that date. Since, neither the latest date of Sīyaka II nor the date of accession of Muñja is definitely known yet, it is not unlikely that Muñja ascended the Paramāra throne before 972 A.C., though the earliest date known of his is 974 A.C. It is usually believed that the Mālava king who plundered Mānyakhēṭa in 972 A.C. was Sīyaka II Harsha on the evidence of a reference found in the Pāiyalachchhi. But as surmised by Fleet the Mālava king might have been Vākpati Muñja himself.[3] Another incident of this campaign mentioned in the present inscription is the fight against the Hūṇas sent by Lōlikya which took place at Paṭṭaṇaka. If Paṭṭaṇaka is identical with Aṇahilavāḍa-Pāṭan which at this date was ruled by Chālukya Mūlarāja, it may be supposed that the armies (of Kēsarin ?) marched against this Chālukya chief and his Hūṇa vassals. I am unable to identify Lōlikya who despatched the Hūṇas. Of the places mentioned in the record, Gōlahaṭṭī-Chāṇakī near ēlāpura may be identified with Gōla and Chāṇēgaon near Ellōrā, i.e., ēlāpura, in the Aurangabad District, Hyderabad State. Viḍa, as stated already, may be identified with Vīḍā near Bilhārī. Or, both Viḍa and Vīḍā may stand for Bilhārī itself.[4] I am unable to locate Paṭṭaṇaka where the Hūṇas were encountered. Whether it stands for Aṇahilvāḍa-Pāṭan or Sōmanātha-Pāṭan cannot be determined until more definite date are available. I am also unable to locate Arkavana. _________________________________________________
[1] Above, Vol. XIV, pp. 295 ff. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|