South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

This was Śrīpṛithivīvallabha-mahārāja. As Vallabha, Śrīvallabha, Pṛithivīvallabha and Śrīpṛithivīvallabha are all identical, being recognized specially as Western Chālukya appellations and the title Mahārāja conveying the status of a paramount sovereign is almost invariably and for the first time applied to Pulakēśin I in all the formal charters of the family,^[1] we are fully justified in identifying Śrīpṛithivīvallabha of our charter with Pulakēśin I. This identification is further strengthened by his description as the performer of Aśvamēdha, Agnishṭōma, Agnichayana and other sacrifices ; for, Pulakēśin I, as known from many records of the family, performed all these sacrifices and a few more.^[2] The mention of Aśvamēdha in this connection is an overwhelming evidence in favour of this identification, since, except for a few Kadamba rulers whose consideration is out of question in the present context, no other monarch in this part of the country is ever credited with such a supreme achievement.

This much about the positive side of the question.

In regard to its negative side, it has be noted that the non-mention of certain ideas and expressions in the praśasti can in no way be cited as contrary evidence. As I have shown elsewhere,^[3] the Chālukya praśasti was still in the formative stage at this time and not yet standardized. The conventional praśasti of the Chālukya house is met with for the first time in the charters of Pulakēśin II, commencing with the Hyderabad grant.

Now who is this Pūgavarman ? He was not known previously and is introduced for the first time by the present charter. His description as agra-sūnu shows that he was the first and the eldest son of Pulakēśin I. As he is not endowed with royal titles we have to surmise that he was governing the province as his father’s deputy and issued the charter in this capacity. This leads to another surmise that Pulakēśin I was ruling at this time. If the identification of [Maḷa]kēṭaka suggested in the sequel is correct, Pūgavarman’s authority might have extended over the present Gulbarga District.

It is well-known that Pulakēśin I had two more sons, the elder of whom, viz. Kīrtivarman, succeeded his father on the Chālukya throne. In his Goḍachi plates, Kīrtivarman is referred to as his father’s favourite son. In the Mahākūṭa inscription of Maṅgaḷīśa who succeeded Kīrtivarman, it is said that Pulakēśin I had two sons and that Kīrtivarman was the senior. These statements do not preclude-the possibility of the existence of yet another son being the seniormost. This possibility is borne out by the present record. The fact that Pulakēśin I was succeeded by Kīrtivarman can be explained on the assumption of Pūgavarman’s demise before his father.^[4]

Assuming that Pulakēśin I started his independent rule a few years prior to the date of the Bādāmi inscription, we may place the commencement of his reign roughly about 535 A.D.^[5] His

_______________________________________________________

^[1] Cf. Bomb. Gaz., Vol. I, Part II, 345 and note 1 ; above, Vol. XXVII, p. 6. ^[2] Bomb. Gaz., op. cit., p. 344 ; above, Vol. XXVII, pp. 8-9, and n. 1. As in the Bādāmi inscription of Ś. 465, the present record also describes the king as Hiraṇyagarbhasambhūta, i.e. one who performed the Hiraṇyagarbha-mahādāna. ^[3] Above, Vol. XXVIII, p. 60 and n. 10. Some scholars are not prepared to assign the present charters to the Chālukya family (A.R. Ep., 1946-50, p. 2). The arguments against this view are set forth in the above discussion. ^[4] It is unnecessary to suggest the identity of Pūgavarman with Kīrtivarman, as they connote two distinct names. Contra. Panchamukhi, op. cit., p. 70. ^[5] Cf. The Classical Age, p. 231.