|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
en this point. The translation of the passage, as kindly supplied to me by him, is as follows :─ “Arikêsari conquered the great feudatories sent by the emperor named Gojjiga and, destroying
the emperor who offered opposition, gave universal sovereignty to Baddegadêva, who came
placing confidence in him (Arikêsari).”[1] Of the personages mentioned in this passage, Arikêsarin (II.) was the patron of Pampa and was a Chalukya chieftain, ruling over the Jôla country,
which in the main coincides with the Dharwar district; Gojjiga was the Râshṭrakûṭa sovereign
Gôvinda IV., and Baddegadêva his uncle Vaddiga alias Amôghavarsha. Now, piecing these
facts together, the conclusions that we arrive at, are (i) that Gôvinda IV. was a sensual
monarch ; (ii) that by his vicious courses he displeased his subjects, and some of his feudatories
as may be naturally presumed ; (iii) that these feudatories, including Arikêsarin II.,[2] rose in
rebellion against Gôvinda IV., met him and his tributary allies in battle and killed him ; and (iv.)
that Arikêsarin II. together with the victorious feudatories requested his uncle Amôghavarsha to occupy the Râshṭrakûṭa throne, which had fallen vacant by the death of Gôvinda IV.
So far we have dealt with the second and third lines of verse 22. We have yet to find out
the full significance of the first line, which, as will be seen from the translation, means to state
that Gôvinda IV. did not practice cruelty towards his elder brother, although he had the power
to do so. This evidently presupposes that, in his time, Gôvinda IV. was commonly understood
to have acted cruelly towards his elder brother. This is the natural inference to be deduced
from the first line, unless it is to be regarded as meaningless. It now behoves us to see what
probably constituted this cruelty. The name of this elder brother, as known from copper-plate
inscriptions, was Amôghavarsha (II.). The he came to the throne can scarcely be seriously
doubted. Dr. Fleet, however, has taken exception to this view, on the ground that Gôvinda IV.,
in his Sâṅglî charter, describes himself as meditating on the feet of, not his elder brother
Amôghavarsha, but his father (Indra-) Nityavarsha.[3] But this conclusion is directly contradicted by the Râshṭrakûṭa and other records. The Bhâdâna and Khârêpâṭaṇ charters, which
scrupulously give the list of those Râshṭrakûṭa princes only who reigned, mention therein the
name of Amôghavarsha.[4] The Dêôlî and Karhâḍ grants, which mention those princes, who did
not reign, as specifically not having reigned, do not speak of Amôghavarsha as not having
reigned, but on the contrary, furnish positive indications that he did reign.[5] Nay, we may
proceed a step further. The last mentioned charters assert that Amôghavarsha II. went to
heaven soon after his father’s death, as if out of affection for the latter.[6] This indicates that
Amôghavarsha II. reigned only for a very short period. This inference receives a strong confirmation from the Bhâdâna grant, which distinctly tells us that Amôghavarsha reigned for a
year only. Now, placing together the fact that the duration of Amôghavarsha’s reign was very
brief, and the implication derivable from the first line of verses 22 that Gôvinda IV. was popularly supposed to have treated his elder brother, i.e. Amôghavarsha, cruelly, one is naturally
inclined to hold that Gôvinda IV. was chiefly instrumental in shortening the period of Amôghavarsha’s reign, or that, in other words, Gôvinda IV., if not actually caused, at any rate hastened,
the death of his elder brother and usurped his throne. If this is so, Gôvinda IV. can by no
means be expected in any one of his copper-plate grants to speak of himself as meditating on
the feet of his elder brother Amôghavarsha, although the latter was his predecessor. But to
conclude from this circumstance that Amôghavarsha did not reign, is entirely to set aside the
______________________
[1] Pampaâs Vikramârjunavijaya, edited by Mr. Rice, Âśvâsa IX. p. 196, ll. 5-9.
[2] Pampa would have us believe that Arikêsarin II. played a prominent part in defeating the allies of Gôvinda
IV. and putting him to death ; but as Indian poets are in the habit of magnifying the deeds of their patrons, one
may reasonably doubt whether Arikêsarin II. actually led the rebellion against Gôvinda IV. as his protégé tells us.
[3] Dyn. Kan, Distr. p. 416 and note 5 ; above, Vol. VI. p. 176 f.
[4] Above, Vol. III. p. 271, verse 6 ; ibid. p. 298, the second half of the last line of verse 3.
[5] Above, Vol. IV. p. 283, verse 18 ; Vol. V. p. 193 f., verse 16.
[6] See verses 19 and 17.
|
