South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

before so very long a reign as that of his son Amôghavarsha I., who was on the throne for not less than sixty-two years. But we can now recognise a distinct reason for which that date should not be allotted to Gôvinda III. We know, from the Waṇî and Râdhanpur grants of A.D. 807, that the first important event after the death of Dhruva was the formation of a confederacy against Gôvinda III. by twelve kings and princes, whom he had to overthrow before his succession to the throne was made secure.^[1] We may note that we learn from the Nausârî grant of A.D. 817 that the confederacy was headed by a certain Stanbha,^[2] in respect of whom Mr. Rice has made the suggestion,^[3] quite soundly, that he is to be identified with the Raṇâvalôka-Kambayya, Kambharasa, or Kambhadêva of the Mysore records, son of Śrîvallabha-Dhruva and elder brother of Gôvinda III. And we trace the motive for it to the fact, stated in the Paiṭhaṇ grant of A.D. 794, that Gôvinda III. had been selected for the succession from among several sons,─ to the exclusion, therefore, of at least Stambha-Kambayya,─ because he surpassed his brothers in merit.^[4] But, what we have to note in particular, is, that this confederacy was the first important event after the death of Dhruva and the accession of Gôvinda III., and that there is no allusion of any kind to it in the Paiṭhaṇ grant of A.D. 794. We must understand, then, that that record gives a very early date in the reign of Gôvinda III., before the occurrence of the events connected with the confederacy, and that it is, therefore, not permissible to carry him back ten years earlier, to A.D. 783-84.

The only other Śrîvallabha of that period, distinctively known by that appellation, was Dhruva. And, irrespective of the question whether the Śrîvallabha of the passage quoted above is described in that passage as “ the son of Kṛishṇa,” or whether he is not so described,^[5] we need not hesitate, now, about deciding that it is to Dhruva that the passage refers by the biruda Śrîvallabha, and that it is for him that it established the date of A.D. 783-84.^[6]

As regards another of the kings who are mentioned in that passage, it may be noted that Vatsarâja of Ujjain is mentioned again in connection with Dhruva in the Waṇî and Râdhanpur grants of A.D. 807, in a verse which tells us that Vatsarâja, who had easily seized the kingdom of Gauḍa (in Bengal), was driven away by Dhruva (from his possessions in Mâlwa, round Ujjain) into the path of misfortune in (the deserts of) Maru (Mârwâr).^[7] Varâha or Jayavarâha, who was ruling the territory of the Sauryas,─ which apparently means Saurâshṭra or Kâṭhiâwâr,─ remains to be exactly identified, but may, as has been suggested above,^[8] very possibly have been a Châpa king. Indrâyudha, the king of the north, may be safely referred to the family to which belonged Chakrâyudha, to whom Dharmapâla, after defeating Indrarâja

________________________________
^[1] Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 161, and Vol. VI. p. 70, verse 13. The event has been wrongly placed by Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji in the life-time of Dhruva (Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. I. Part I. p. 123). The text of the record distinctly says that Dhruva was then dead.
^[2] Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XX. p. 145, verse 27.
^[3] Ep. Carn. Vol. IV. Introd. p. 5.
^[4] Above, Vol. III. p. 107, text line 37 f.
^[5] See page 196 above, note 5.
^[6] In following my original proposal as to the application of the passage, and in accepting it as meaning Vallabha-Gôvinda II., Dr. Bhandarkar (Early History of the Dekkan, in the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. II. Part I. p. 197) has overlooked the point that the appellation is, not Vallabha, but Śrîvallabha, which is quite a different thing ; and, when he wrote, he was of course not aware that Śrîvallabha was a biruda Dhruva.─ As regards the hysterical outburst, in connection with matter, to which Mr. K. B. Pathak has given vent on page 5 f. of the Introduction to his edition of the Kavirâjamârga (see also Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XX. p. 26), it is sufficient to remark that, in his second-hand and crude dissertation on Dantidurga, Kṛishṇa I., Gôvinda II., and Dhruva, he has not forward nothing new of any historical value, and, in re-asserting the date of A.D. 783-84 for Gôvinda II. according to my original proposal, he has, from sheer ignorance of the subject and incapability of dealing with it, simply reiterated a mistake and missed the very point on which there was an useful correction to be made. His paroxysmal note 3 on page 5 of the Introduction (see also Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XX. p. 25, note 18) is, except in the first line of it as far as the words “ A.D. 750,” nothing but an attribution to me of statements that I have not made and views that I have not formed.
^[7] Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 161, and Vol. VI. p. 69, verse 8.
^[8] Page 196 above, note 1.