|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA warlike exploits of Vishṇuvardhana need not be discussed here, as they have been treated at great length by Dr. Fleet, who also was the first to identify king Paramardidêva with the Western Châlukya king Permâḍi-Vikramâditya VI., the feudal lord of Vishṇuvardhana. Vishṇuvardhana’s son and successor was Narasiṁha, who married the noble Êchaladêvî (vv. 18, 19). Their son was Vîra-Ballâḷa II. to whom the rest of the eulogy (vv. 20-36) is devoted. He is said (v. 20) to have acquired the kingdom by worshipping Vajrêśvara. This term seems to refer to Indra ; but, as vajra is occasionally used also with reference to the chakra of Vishṇu,[1] Vajrêśvara may possibly be meant here for Vishṇu. At any rate it is stated in another record[2] that he had gained the empire by being the favourite of Vijaya-Nârâyaṇa, and in the present inscription also he is represented as an ardent worshipper of Vishṇu (v. 24). After a series of laudatory verses (20-33) and the general statement that the Aṅgas, Kaḷiṅgas, Vaṅgas, Magadhas, Chôḷas, Mâḷavas, Pâṇḍyas, Kêraḷas and Gûrjaras were in fear of him (v. 34), the inscription gives in verses 35 and 36 a more details account of two of Ballâḷ’s campaigns : ‘ And by force, he, the strong one,[3] defeated with cavalry only, and deprived of his sovereignty, the general Brahman whose army was strengthened by an array of elephants, and who had conquered sixty tusked elephants with a single tuskless[4] elephants, when, on account of an insult to his father, he was tearing the royal fortune from the family of the Kaḷachuris. And cutting off Jaitrasiṁha who was, as it were, the right arm of that Bhillama, he, the hero, acquired also the sovereignty over the country of Kuntaḷa.â
The general Brahman mentioned in the former verse was the councillor and general of the last Châlukya king Sômêśvara IV. His name occurs in several Châlukya records from A.D. 1184-85 to 1186-87,[5] and in one of them he is called ‘ a fire of death to the Kaḷachuryas. Like his father Kâma or Kâvaṇa, he had originally been in the service of the Kaḷachuryas. Kâvaṇa is mentioned as the daṇḍanâyaka of king Saṅkama in a Harihar inscription, and again as the commander-in-chief of all the forces of that king in a Baḷagâṁve inscription of A.D. 1179, and as the daṇḍanâyaka of Âhavamalla in a Baḷagâṁve inscription of A.D. 1181.[6] And Brahman himself is called the mahâpradhâna, sênâdhipati and daṇḍanâyaka of king Sôvidêva in a record of A.D. 1175. The reason for his rebellion is given in our inscription in the words ‘ nyakkârêṇa pituḥ.’ Dr. Fleet renders them ‘ in contempt of his father,’ but I doubt that the words admit of such an interpretation. I can only translate them as I have done above, and, considering that the records make it highly probable that Kâvaṇa was still alive when Brahman revolted against his sovereign, I see no difficulty in assuming that the account of the motives of Brahman as given in our inscription is correct. As to Jaitrasiṁha, by whose conquest Ballâḷa is said to have acquired Kuntaḷa or the southern Marâṭha country, there can be no doubt that he is identical with the Jaitasiṁha mentioned as the minister of the Yâdava king Bhillama in the Gadag inscription of Śaka 1113.[7] On the other hand, I see no cogent reason why this Jaitrasiṁha should be identified with Bhillama’s son and successor Jaitugi or Jaitrapâla.[8] The names it is true, are similar, but if Jaitrasiṁha had been Bhillama’s son, one should certainly expect that __________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|