South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

A.D.) the feet of Vāmaśambhu were worshipped by Kalachuri kings squares with the fact that the expression Vāmadēva-pād-ānudhyāta occurs in almost all records of the Kalachuris of Tripurī from Karṇa downwards ”. But he next sets forth certain “ reasons ” for which he is “ inclined to look with suspicion on the statements in the Malkāpuram inscription about the early pontiffs of the Gōḷakī maṭha.” These “ reasons ” are, however, extremely unlikely to satisfy all students of history. As for instance, Professor Mirashi points out the absence of epigraphic evidence to prove the existence of Kalachuri rulers at Tripurī about the time when the Malkāpuram inscription was engraved. But the possibility of the scions of the imperial Kalachuri house of Tripurī ruling over parts of Ḍāhala in the thirteenth century at least as minor chiefs can hardly be ruled out. A writer on the history of the Kalachuris says at the end of his account of the Tummāṇa Kalachuris who represented a branch of the Tripurī house : “ It is certain that the Muslims never succeeded in establishing their power in the Chhattisgarh division and there is evidence to show that the Kalachuris continued to figure as chiefs of Chhattisgarh right up to the 18th century. The Khalari stone inscription of the Kalachuri king Haribrahmadēva (son of Rāmadēva and grandson of Siṁhaṇa) is dated in 1415 A.D. while the Arang plate of the Haihaya king Amarasiṁhadēva is dated as late as 1735 A.D”.^[1] The absence of Vāmadēva’s name in the records of the Kalachuris of Chhattisgarh scarcely proves that the Śaiva saint was not held in veneration by the Kalachuris of the thirteenth century. This may merely show that their esteem for Vāmadēva was not as remarkable as in the case of the Kalachuri monarchs of Tripurī. Professor Mirashi’s doubt regarding the authenticity of the statement in the Malkāpuram inscription on the basis of such weak “ reasons ” can therefore hardly be taken quite seriously.

Vāmadēva, referred to in the records of Kalachuri Karṇa and his successors, is endowed with imperial titles just like the kings who are said to have been his pād-ānudhyāta. Professor Mirashi says, “ the use of imperial titles in connection with him would be difficult to explain for we have not till now come across a single instance of the assumption of such titles by spiritual teachers ”. Of course the epithet, Paramabhaṭṭāraka applied to the Śaiva priest Vimalaśambhu or ­ºśiva in the Mamdāpur inscription of Śaka 1172 noticed in the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III, 1888, p. 17, note 3, has been passed over in silence together with some of my observations published at later dates. It was pointed out by me that the Śaiva saint Vāmadēva (Vāmaśambhu) was represented as an emperor because the Kalachuri kings, Karṇa and his successors, regarded their dominions as belonging to the saint and themselves as the latter’s deputies just as the Guhilots of Chitor and the kings of Travancore considered themselves viceroys respectively of the gods Ēkaliṅga and Padmanābhasvāmin. The tradition regarding the dedication of the Marāṭhā empire by Śivājī in favour of his guru Rāmadāsa was also referred to. It was further pointed out with quotations from a number of epigraphic records that the god Jagannātha or Purushōttama of Purī is mentioned as the overlord of the reigning Gaṅga monarch in several later Gaṅga inscriptions.^[2] Now it seems that Professor Mirashi may be satisfied if the finds inscriptions in which a Śaiva saint is unmistakably endowed with regal or imperial epithets. Fortunately I am able to draw his attention to several such records.

Recently I had occasion to examine a number of impressions of the Achalgarh (Mount Abu, Rājputānā) inscription of the Dēvḍā Chāhamāna Tējaḥsiṁha of Chandrāvatī noticed in the Archæological Survey of Western India, No. 2, Appendix, p. xv, No. 58 ; Progress Report of the Archæological

__________________________________________________

^[1] Ray, DHNI, Vol. II, p. 815. For fuller lists of the Kalachuri rulers of Chhattisgarh (Ratanpur and Raipur branches), see Hiralal, Inscriptions in the C. P. and Berar, 1932, pp. 205-07.
^[2] See my paper entitled ‘ Gaṅga Bhānudēva II and Purushōttama-Jagannātha ’ in JKHRS, Vol. I, June 1946, pp. 251-53. According to the Oriya chronicle Mādalā Pāñjī, Anaṅgabhīma III dedicated his kingdom in favour of the god Purushōttama-Jagannātha and for that reason the said Gaṅga king and his successors became Rāutas (feudatories) of the deity (cf. Orissa Historical Research Journal, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 48-51 ; above, p. 19).