South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

specific purport and value than are the very similar statements that are made in the same record about Gôvinda I. and Indra I., who were not reigning kings, but were simply ancestors of the first reigning king. And the Waṇî grant of A.D. 807, which is the next record of the same kind, specifically tells us that Dhruva obtained the sovereignty by “ leaping over his elder brother (jyêshṭh-ôllaṅghana),” whose name it does not even take the trouble to mention.^[1] This is a most distinct assertion that Dhruva superseded his elder brother altogether. And further light is thrown on the matter by another passage in the Paiṭhaṇ grant,^[2] which says that Gôvinda II. fetched in large numbers even hostile kings,─ the ruler of Mâlava and other, the lord of Kâñchî, the Gaṅga, and him of Veṅgî,─ but the mind of Dhruva, after that he had possessed himself of his ruby-ornaments and store of gold, underwent no change in regard to him ; and then, having made conciliatory overtures to him in vain, Dhruva speedily defeated him in battle, and drove away the eastern and the northern opponents,^[3] and thus “ obtained the whole sovereignty.” This makes it clear that Gôvinda II. did not submit quietly to being deprived of his rights. And we have, perhaps, an intimation that he established himself in the northern territory, while Dhruva set himself up as his rival in the south, and that time elapsed before Dhruva made himself master of the whole kingdom. But it is plain that, at the best, Gôvinda II. made a stand for only a short time. And it seems more probable that the passage simply seeks to described him, as Pulakêśin II. is described in the Aihoḷe record, as engaging in the act called aparuddhacharita, that is to say, wandering abroad, debarred altogether from his rights, and endeavouring to obtain them by the help of other rulers.^[4]

>

The statement made in the Waṇî grant would not be inconsistent with the possibility that Gôvinda II. was the intended successor of Kṛishṇa I. Also, we have not as yet found, in any of the records, any statements in respect of Dhruva similar to those which are made in respect of his son and successor Gôvinda III. ; namely, in the Râdhanpur grant,^[5] that Gôvinda III. received from his father the kaṇṭhikâ or necklet (which was the badge of appointment as Yuvarâja), but protested against a transfer of the sovereignty itself to him while his father was still alive, and, in the Paiṭhaṇ grant, that he was chosen for the succession out of several sons, because he surpassed his brothers in merit. We, therefore, cannot say that the succession was not intended to pass, at this point, from the father, Kṛishṇa I., to the elder son, Gôvinda II. And the pointed expression used in the Waṇî grant is, in fact, rather suggestive that, not only was Gôvinda II. the intended successor, but also the appointment of him as Yuvarâja had actually been made. We naturally, however, follow the information furnished by the Paiṭhaṇ and Waṇî grants, which are so near in time to the events themselves, in preference to a loose statement, which first appears a century and a half later, in a record which does not follow any of the ancient drafts but presents an altogether new composition. If, indeed, that statement could be looked upon as authoritative at all, it might be interpreted, just as readily, as meaning that Gôvinda II. was so much engrossed in sensual pleasures that he was altogether indifferent about the sovereignty and deliberately allowed Dhruva to usurp it, which, however, we know from the Paiṭhaṇ grant was not the case. But, obviously, the statement owes its existence to nothing but the fact, which we can recognise from also other independent drafts, that the name of Gôvinda II. had been duly preserved in the vaṁśâvali and archives of the dynasty, and to a flight of fancy on the part of the composer of the draft that was followed in that record, who, differing from the composers of some other drafts, thought it worth while to mention Gôvinda II., and said about him the first thing that came into his head and sufficed to fill out a verse with some

__________________________________________
^[1] Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 157, text line 7.
^[2] For the literal full translation, see above, Vol. III. p. 104.
^[3] The Gaṅgas, then, in the south, apparently remained to be dealt with on a subsequent occasion.
^[4] See Professor Kielhorn’s explanation of the technical term in question (page 9 above, note 2).
^[5] In the Waṇî grant, which is slightly earlier in date, part of this passage was carelessly omitted, and two
complete verses, of four pâdas each, were combined into one verse with the exceptional number of five pâdas.