|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
then at the confluence of the rivers Kṛishṇaverṇâ and Musî after his victorious camp had
invaded the province of Veṅgi and the lord of Veṅgi had humbly ceded his treasures, his forces,
and his country, granted to a Brâhmaṇ a certain village in the Alaktakâ vishaya, which[1] was a
territory close on the east of Kôlhâpur, between the rivers Vârṇâ, Kṛishṇâ, and Dûdhgaṅgâ.
Now, the bad formation of the characters, and the occasional very marked irregularity of
the lines of the writing, suffice to shew that these Alâs plates do not contain the original and
synchronous official record of the matters recited in them. And they are, therefore, a spurious
record. Whether, however, the matter set forth in the record is unauthentic, is another
question. But it seems hardly likely that the composer of it could have invented the birudas
ending in avalôka.[2] There is nothing discordant in the date, A.D. 770, which applies, of course,
to Kṛishṇa I. as well as to Gôvinda II., and fits in perfectly well between the dates of A.D. 754,
which we have for Dantidurga-Dantivarman II., and A.D. 783-84, which we have for Dhruva.[3]
And I think that, pending the production of any distinct evidence to the contrary, we may
look upon this record as based upon something genuine, and as being a more or less accurate
reproduction, from probably a manuscript copy, of an original record which had been lost, and
may accept it as establishing, provisionally, that Gôvinda II. was actually installed as
Yuvarâja, and was holding office as such, under his father Kṛishṇa I., in A.D. 770. While,
however, it may be provisionally accepted to that extent, this Alâs record does not prove that
Gôvinda II. succeeded to the throne and reigned as king.[4]
_____________________________
[1] See Ind. Ant. Vol. XXIX. p. 277 f.
[2] On the subject of the avalôka-appellations of the Râshṭrakûṭas of Mâlkhêḍ, see Vol. VI. above, p. 188 f.
[3] See Vol. VI. above. pp. 167, 197.
[4] There is nothing more that can be said that question, to any practical purpose, until we obtain further
definite facts to go upon. But I am compelled to notice some remarks made by Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar, on page 28
above, in connection with Sâṅglî record of A.D. 933 and an alleged utilisation of it by me, in respect of the
point in question, on the occasion indicated above, namely, in Vol. VI. above, p. 170 ff., when, he said, I was
meeting objections brought by him against the views previously expressed by me. So far from basing any argument on the Sâṅglî record, so completely did I set it aside as being a late record of no authority on the point in
question, that it was only after twice reading through my remarks that I discovered that Mr. Bhandarkar’s allusion
is to my inclusion of it in a foot-note in which I merely put together all the cases in which Gôvinda II. is, or is not,
mentioned in the Râshṭrakûṭa records. And, so far from, rightly understanding and applying the meaning of what I wrote, Mr. Bhandarkar has simply himself made from the Sâṅglî record an objectless deduction, about Jagattuṅga-Gôvinda III. and Amôghavarsha I., which could not serve any practical purpose, and in respect of which there is
not any basis for his suggestion that it follows from anything said by me.─ To the cases, put together by me in
Vol. VI. above, p. 172, note 2, in which Gôvinda II. is or is not, mentioned in the Râshṭrakûṭa records, we have
now to add two more. The Chokkhakuṭi grant of A.D. 867 (Vol. VI. above, p. 289, verses 15, 16, text line 17 to
20) repeats the two verses about Gôvinda II. and Dhruva which are presented in the Paiṭhaṇ record of A.D. 794.
And the Cambay plates of A.D. 930 (page 37 above, verses 8, 9, 10, text lines 10 to 14) present the three verses
about Kṛishṇa I., Gôvinda II., and Nirupama-(Dhruva) which we have in the Sâṅglî plates of A.D. 933.
_____________________________________
|
