North Indian Inscriptions

SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.

the overthrow of the Râshṭrakûṭas by the Western Châlukya Taila II. And I am certain that the origin of the statement is to be found in the facts that, almost at the end of the Râshṭrakûṭa period, there was a powerful Râshṭrakûṭa king Kṛishṇa III., and that he left a grandson, Indra IV., by crowning whom the Western Gaṅga prince Mârasiṁha attempted to continue the Râshṭrakûṭa sovereignty after the oveṛthrow of Kakka II.¹ And in the second place,— even granting, for the sake of argument, that there was an early Râshṭrakûṭa king Kṛishṇa, belonging to the same period with the Western Chalukya Jayasiṁha I., and approximating to the date put forward in the Merkara grant ; and also that the birudas of the Râshṭrakûṭas were as constant as Mr. Rice would have them to be,— there must have been a time when each biruda was first devised ; and the only sound course in respect of any particular biruda is to take the earliest instance that is actually proved for it. The biruda Akâlavarsha appears first in connection with the Râshṭrakûṭa king Kṛishṇa I.² It belonged subsequently to his descendants Kṛishṇa II. and Kṛishṇa III. And, intrinsically, any one of these three kings might be the person referred to in the Merkara grant. If that person, however, is Kṛishṇa I., who came shortly after A.D. 754, then at the best, the record was written close upon three centuries after the date to which it refers itself ; but this identification is rendered impossible by the palæographic evidence, noted above, which fixes about half a century later,— and the third generation after Kṛishṇa I.,— as the earliest possible period for the concoction of the record. The date of Kṛishṇa II., just after A.D. 878, fits in sufficiently with the palæographic evidence, and, going slightly further, establishes the last quarter, instead of the beginning, of the ninth century A.D., as the earliest possible period to which the fabrication of the Merkara grant can be referred. I think, however, that the mention of a king Akâlavarsha in this record is in reality to be attributed to the fact that the biruda belonged also to Kṛishṇa III., whose period was about A.D. 940 to 956, and who had some very special relations with the Western Gaṅgas : by his father Amôghavarsha-Vaddiga, a sister of his was given in marriage to Permânaḍi-Bûtuga, with, as her dowry, the districts known as the Puligere Three-hundred, the Beḷvola Three-hundred, the Kisukâḍ Seventy, and the Bâge or Bâgenâḍ Seventy ;³ he himself confirmed Bûtuga, probably as governor, in the possession of the same districts, as a reward for killing the Chôḷa king Râjâditya ;⁴ a son of his own married a daughter of Gaṅga-Gâṅgêya ; i.e. Bûtuga ;⁵ and Indra IV., by crowning whom Mârasiṁha sought to continue the Râshṭrakûṭa sovereignty after the downfall of Kakka II., was the offspring of that marriage.⁶ And if this view is accepted, the earliest possible period for the fabrication of the Merkara grant is pushed still further on, to about the middle of the tenth century A.D.

......There is also similar evidence in the British Museum grant. In line 56 it gives the name of Kalivallabha, which, there can be little doubt, either denotes the Râshṭrakûṭa king Kali-vallabha-Dhruva (just before A.D. 782-84), or else owes its origin to the fact of his having had that biruda.

......And finally we have to note that, in the four cases in which the dates include details that can be tested by calculation, in not one instance do those details work out correctly.⁷ Thus :—

......The Tanjore grant purports to be dated in the Prabhava saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 169 expired, on the new-moon tithi of the month Phâlguna, on Friday, under the Rêvatî nakshatra
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ This is evidently the real meaning of a passage near the beginning of Inscriptions at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, No. 38, which (id. Introd. p. 19) is rendered differently by Mr. Rice.
......² It is established for him by the Paiṭhaṇ grant of Gôvinda III. of A.D. 794 (page 104 above). In the cases of his descendants Kṛishṇa II. and Kṛishṇa III., the biruda is well known, from various records.
......³ From an unpublished record.
......⁴ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II. p. 174.
......⁵ Inscriptions at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, Introd. p. 21.
......⁶ ibid.
......⁷ I place this point last, because there are undoubtedly some, if not many, genuine records, the dates of which are not correct, but which are not, therefore, to be condemned. When, however, as in the present series, every date is wrong, the point becomes one of very considerable importance.