|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
Two other points of some importance deserve to be noticed. The first is with regard to the
date of Dharmapâla, who has been placed conjecturally by Cunningham and Prof. Kielhorn in
the earlier part, or about the middle, of the 9th century.[1] But we have seen that Dharmapâla
was a contemporary of the Râshṭrakûṭa prince Indra III., for whom the Râshṭrakûṭa records
furnish the dates 915 and 917 A.D. We thus have positive evidence that Dharmapâla lived in
the earlier part of the 10th century, i.e. at least half a century later than he has hitherto been
placed. Next, the Mungir plates of Dêvapâladêva tell us that Dharmapâla married Raṇṇâdêvî, daughter of the Râshṭrakûṭa prince Śrî-Paravala. Prof. Kielhorn, who re-edited the inscription,
corrects Śri-Paravala into Śrî-Vallabha.[2] If this correction is accepted, the Râshṭrakûṭa
king, who was the father-in-law of Dharmapâla, was either Kṛishṇa II. or Indra III. himself.
For Jagattuṅga, father of the latter and son of the former, died without coming to the throne.
Further, it appears unlikely that Dharmapâla, if he had been the son-in-law of Indra III., would
have carried on hostilities with him. On the whole, therefore, it seems more probable that
Kṛishṇa II. was the father-in-law of Dharmapâla.
So much for the historical conclusion to be drawn from verse 19 of our grant. From verse
20 we gather that Indra III. married Vijâmbâ of the Haihaya, i.e. Chêdi,dynasty. She is
therein said to be the daughter of Ammaṇadêva, who himself was the son of Arjuna and grandson of Kôkkalla. From Indra III. and Vijâmbâ sprang the prince Gôvinda (IV.), “ the beauty
of whose form excelled that of the god of love” (v. 21). The first three lines of verse 22 look as
if the composer of the inscription were giving of his own accord quite an uncalled-for defence
to establish the spotless character of his patron Gôvinda IV. This is enough to lead one to
suspect the certain accusations, which the composer tries to confute, were in his time actually
whispered against Gôvinda IV. The second and third lines of this verses, as will be seen from
the translation, defend him against the attackof sensuality and incest. This indicates that
Gôvinda IV. was popularly believed to have led a dissolute life and even looked upon as incestuous. And, that he had given himself up to sensual pleasures, is mentioned in the Khârêpâṭaṇ
grant and in the Dêôlî and Karhâḍ charters. The former calls him “an abode of the sentiment of love, surrounded by crowds of lovely women.”[3] The two latter represent him as “the
source of the sportive pleasures of love” and as “one whose intelligence was entangled in the
nooses which were the eyes of women.”[4] The Dêôlî and Karhâḍ charters, moreover, tell us
that, in consequence of his sensual courses, he undermined his health and bedimmed his natural
lustre. Another sense is also here intended, viz., that Gôvinda IV. incurred the displeasure
of his subjects, rendered the constituents of the political body loose, and thus met with destruction. To this may be added the further statement of the aforesaid grants that, after Gôvinda
IV. had thus come to ruin, the feudatory chieftains besought his uncle Amôghavarsha to
ascend the throne and thereby maintain the Raṭṭa,i.e. Râshṭrakûṭa, sovereignty, and that
accordingly he acceded to their request.[5] Mr. K. B. Pathak has drawnmy attention to a
passage in the Vikramârjunavijaya by the Kanarese poet Pampa, which has an important bearing
______________
proved that the Indra, who is associated with Chakrâyudha in the Bhâgalpur charter, was a Râshṭrakûṭa prince,
holding sway in the Dekkan, and cannot, therefore, be identified with Indrâyudha, who was ruling in the north.
and that this Râshṭrakûṭa king Indra can neither be the elder brother of, nor belong to the same family with,
Chakrâyudha, who was king of Kaṇauj.
[1] See above, Vol. IV. p. 246 ; Ind. Ant. Vol.XXI. p. 254; Arch. Sur. Rep. Vol. XV. p. 150, where Cunningham
fixes the accession of Dharmapâla in A.D. 831. Now that we know that Dharmapâla was a contemporary of the
Râshṭrakûṭa prince Indra III., the mention of the week-day and the regnal year in his Mahâbôdhi inscription can
be utilised to determine much approximately the date of Dharmapâla’s accession, as was first suggested by
Cunningham.
[2] Ind. Ant. Vol. XXI. p. 254, and note 10 on p. 90.
[3] Above, Vol. III. p. 298, text line 10.
[4] Above, Vol. IV. p. 283 f., verse 20 ; Vol. V. p. 194, verse 18.
[5] Above, Vol. IV. p. 284, verse 21 ; Vol. V. p. 194, verse 19.
|
