|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
for the first time in the Gadval plates of 674 A.D.[1] They appear therefore to have been added to
his praśasti after the accession of the Pallava king Paramēśvaravarman I some time about 669
A.D.[2] One of the three kings who shadowed the royal fortune of Pulakēśiṇ II must have been
Pallava Narasiṁhavarman I while the two others were apparently his allies, although their identify
is not clear. The allusion to the three kingdoms of the hostile rulers, in which Vikramāditya I
re-established his family’s prestige, does not appear to suggest that three kingdoms were established
in the southern part of the Chālukya empire, which had been conquered by the enemies of Pulakēśin II. The implication of the passage in question seems to be that Pulakēśin II conquered the
three kingdoms in which he created certain endowments in favour of gods and Brāhmaṇas, that
the rulers of those kingdoms later defeated and killed Pulakēśin II and confiscated the properties
involved in the endowments and that Vikramāditya I sometime afterwards reconquered the three
kingdoms and restored the endowments. This seems to be supported by the Aihole inscription,[3]
according to which Pulakēśin II defeated the Pallava king of Kāñchī and went to the land to the
south of the Kāvērī, where he became the source of prosperity to the Chōḷas, Kēraḷas and Pāṇḍyas.
It appears that Pulakēśin II succeeded in winning over the allegiance of the southern neighbours of
the Pallavas. Since it is very probable that it is two of these three smaller powers of the south
that sided with Pallava Narasiṁhavarman I in his successful encounter against Pulakēśin II, the
Chālukya king’s policy of befriending the neighbours of the Pallavas, referred to above, appears
to have been successful only for a short time. But which one of the four southern kings, viz.
the Pallava, Chōḷa, Pāṇḍya and Kēraḷa, is omitted in the reference to the three kings (avanipatitritaya) and their kingdoms (rājya-traya) in the records of Vikramāditya I is difficult to determine,
although it may be Kēraḷa. It is, however, interesting to note that the inscriptions of Vinayāditya
(681-96 A.D.), son of Vikramāditya I, credits his father with success against all the four rulers.[4]
Vinayāditya speaks of his father as ºPallavapati-parājay-ānantara-gṛihīta-Kāñchīpura (i.e. one who
captured Kāñchïpura after having defeated the Pallava king) and ºdalita-Chōḷa-Pāṇḍya-Kēraḷadharaṇïdhara-mānaº (i.e. one who curbed the pride of the Chōḷas, Pāṇḍyas and Kēraḷas). Vinayāditya himself also claims to have arrested, under his father’s orders, the power or forces of trairājya-Pallava or trairājya-Kāñchī-pati. These expressions have been variously interpreted ; but the
reference is apparently to the same achievements ascribed to the Chālukya king’s father separately,
i.e. to the success against the Pallava king of Kāñchī and against the three kingdoms of the Chōḷas,
Pāṇḍyas and Kēraḷas.[5] The explanation of the omission of one of the four powers in the records of
Vikramāditya I seems to be that he had no occasion to enter into that particular territory. The
presence of the Chālukya king in the Chōḷa country is well known from his Gadval plates issued
from Uragapura (i.e. the Chōḷa capital) situated in the Chōlika vishaya on the southern bank of
the Kāvērī.[6] But the references in the passages under study appear to point to his exploits in
the southern kingdoms before his occupation of the throne of Bādami about 655 A.D.
The object of the inscription is to record the grant of the village of Iparuṁkal, situated in
Vaṁgūravāḍi-vishaya, by Mahārājādhirāja Paramēśvara Vikramāditya Satyāśraya Śrīpṛi-
______________________________________________________
[1] The stanzas are also found in the undated Hyderabad plates. But they are absent from the Honnur plates
issued on the full-moon day of Vaiśākha in Śaka 592 or the king’s 16th regnal year (i.e. April 9, 670 A.D.). The
grant was made when the king was camping at Malliyūr-grāma to the west of Kāñchīpura at the request of Gaṅga
Kaliyaṅga’s son Mādhava and the latter’s wife who was the daughter of Vikramāditya’s elder brother Raṇarāgavarman.
[2] As already noted above, the stanzas in question are not found in the Honnur plates, dated the 9th April
670 A.D.
[3] Above, Vol. VI, p. 6, text lines 14-15.
[4]Cf., e.g., Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, p. 89.
[5] Bomb. Gaz., op. cit., p. 362, note 6 ; The Classical Age, p. 344.
[6] Above, Vol. X, p. 103, text line 25.
|
