|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
ruling over Vēṅgī 14000 as a subordinate of Vikramāditya when a certain Nāyaka made some
gift to god Agastyēśvaradēva at Kommūru, in the Bapatla Taluk of the same District.[1] About
1120 A.D., Anantapāla’s wife made a gift to the celebrated shrine of Bhīmēśvara at Drākshārāma.[2]
The gifts made by Velanāṇṭi Rājēndra in the same year and by Mayilamma, the wife of a Telugu-Chōḍa chief, in the year after that, at Drākshārāma are recorded in inscriptions dated in the
Chālukya-Vikrama era.[3] Another inscription from Tripurāntakam[4] in the Markapuram Taluk
of the Kurnool District, dated in the Chālukya-Vikrama year 51, Parābhava (corresponding to
Tuesday, June 22, 1126 A.D., a solar eclipse occurring on this date), states that Anantapālarasa,
the Daṇḍnāyaka, was ruling over Vēṅgī 12,000 and Emmedale 6,000 as a subordinate of Vikramāditya. This record states that Anantapāla had the pleasure of seeing his nephew and son-in-law
Gōvindarasa who was ruling over Koṇḍapalli 300, pursue the Chōḷa, conquer the Chōḷa country
and carry away as booty a large number of elephants, soldiers, treasures and all the belongings
of the Chōḷa king. Gōvindarasa also attacked Jananātharājapura, another name of Drākshārāma,
then the provincial capital of Vēṅgī, and brought from it everything of Kumāra, captured Dōcheya
and Goṅka (probably the aṅkakāras of the Chōḷa viceroy)─a feat which was considered as amounting to the capture of the person of the king himself, and burnt Vēṅgīpura.[5] Anantapāla is said
to have earned, as a consequence, the title Chōḷa-kaṭaka chūrakāra. “ This same victory is also
claimed by Ēchapa, a subordinate of Anantapāla, who is said to have pursued the Chōḷa forces
from the village Uppinakaṭṭe in Vēṅgī to Kāñchī and gained for himself the title Chōḷa-rājyanirmūlana.”[6] It will thus be seen that Vēṅgī was completely conquered by Vikramāditya VI
who carried his arms even as far as Kāñchī. This eclipse of the Chōḷa-Chālukya power in Vēṅgī
continued till the death of Vikramāditya VI in 1126 A.D. Thus Vikramāditya VI and his Hoysaḷa
subordinate Vishṇuvardhana, together overran the entire Chōḷa empire in the west and north.
It was at this time when the whole dominion of the Chōḷas was overrun by foreign invasion resulting
in much loss of territory that Vikrama-chōḷa began to assert his right to the Chōḷa throne and
wage the civil was with his brother or half-brother Parāntakadēva. It may even be supposed
that these troubles started after he proclaimed himself as the rightful heir to the Chōḷa throne.
An inscription on a pillar in front of the Chōḷēśvara temple at Niḍubrōlu in the Guntur District
registering the gift of land and lamps to the temple of Goṅkēśvara at Chērakuṁballi or Ikshupalli
by Māraya Paṇḍa, the general of Velanāṇṭi Goṅka, is dated in Śaka 1054 and the 17th regnal year
of Tribhuvanachakravartin Vikrama-chōḷa yielding Śaka 1038 (1115-16 A. D.) as the date of his
accession, three years earlier than the date usually assigned to him.[7] And Kulōttuṅga I was alive
when these two sons of his were fighting one another for the throne. We do not know what his
attitude towards them was or whom he supported. But it is natural to presume that having
already chosen Parāntaka as heir-apparent and associated him with the government, he would
have espoused the cause of that son as against Vikrama-chōḷa unless it be that Parāntaka had in
the meanwhile turned a traitor ; there is indeed no ground to suppose such a situation. On the
other hand, the inscriptions of Parāntaka show in unmistakable terms that his administration had
the entire approval of his father and the reigning monarch, Kulōttuṅga I.
Then Vikrama-chōḷa would have had to contend against both his brother Parāntakadēva
and his father Kulōttuṅga I to achieve his object. His ultimate success, even during the lifetime of his father, clearly implies that he must have had the active support not only of some strong
__________________________________________________
[1] SII, Vol. IX, No. 196.
[2] Ibid., Vol. IV, No. 1211.
[3] Ibid., Nos. 1216, 1228.
[4] Ibid., Vol. IX, No. 213.
[5] Ibid., No. 213.
[6] JAHRS, Vol. XVIII. p. 59 ; Proc. AIOC, Session X, p. 421.
[7] SII, Vol. VI, No 123.
|
