South Indian Inscriptions

EARLY CHALUKYAS OF GUJARAT

re-establishment of Chālukya suzerainty even according to Fleet’s view. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt loyalty of the Sēndrakas, though there was undoubtedly much disturbance and disorder in the Chālukya dominion owning to Pallava invasions in the beginning of Vikramāditya I’s reign

After the issue of the Bagumrā plates, however, the Sēndrakas seem to have been ousted from Southern Gujarat; for within fifteen years from the date of that grant we find a subordinate branch of the Western Chālukyas established in the lower Tāpī valley. The next date of the Kalachuri era that comes from Gujarat, viz., K. 421, furnished by the grant¹ which the prince-regent Śryāśraya-Sīlāditya made on behalf of his father Dharā- śraya-Jayasimha. As we shall see later, it records the gift of a village situated within twenty miles of Balisa or Wanesa which was granted by the Bagumrā plates of the Sēndraka Allaśakti. It is plain, therefore, that Śryāśraya-Śīlāditya was ruling over the same territory which was previously held by the Sēndrakas. The sēndrakas then removed their seat of government to Khandesh, where we find Allaśakti’s son Jayaśakti granting the village Sēnānā by his Mundakhēdē plates² dated Śaka 602 (680 A. C.). The donated village is now represented by Saundanē near the western border of the Khandesh District. The use of the Śaka era in dating the record also shows that the grant was made outside Gujarat where the Kalachuri era remained current for more than half a century afterwards.³

THE EARLY CHALUKYAS OF GUJARAT

After the overthrow of the Kalachuris, Pulakēśin II seems to have annexed Maharashtra to the country under his direct rule.⁴ In the Aihōlē inscription⁵ he is called the lord of the three Mahārāshtras comprising ninety-nine thousands villages. Yuan Chwang, who travelled in South India during his reign, also mentions him as the king of Mo-ha- la-ch’a (Maharashtra).⁶ Pulakēśin seems to have placed the southern districts, viz., Satara, Pandharpur and perhaps also Sholapur under his younger brother Vishnuvardhana; for, the Satara plates⁷ of the latter prince record the grant of a village on the southern _______________

¹No. 27. The Manor plates of Jayāśraya Mangalarasa, which have been published recently, mention Śaka 613(691-92 A. C.) as the twenty-first year, evidently, of the reign of Dharāśraya-Jayasimha. Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVIII, p. 21. The dynastic change seems, therefore, to have occurred in 671 A. C. The Surat plates of Yuvarāja Śryāśraya-Śīlāditya, dated K. 421 (670-71), seem to have been issued after Gujarat came into the possession of Jayasimha.
²These plates have been edited twice in Marāthī, first in the Marāthī journal Prabhāta (Vol. I) of Dhulia and then in A. R. B. I. S. M. (Śaka 1834), but unfortunately they are not forthcoming now. The plates were found in the possession of the Patel of Mundakhēdē, not far from Dhulia. They were issued by Jayaśakti, son of Allaśakti, of the Sēndraka family from Jayapuradvārī and record grant of the village Sēnānā in the vishaya of Kundalikāmala to a Brāhman residing at Kallivana. I have elsewhere identified these places. Thus Jayapuradvārī, which was so called probably it was situated at the entrance to a defile, is modern Jēur, 6 m. north of Nāndgaon, which lies at the entrance to the valley between the Sātmālā and Ajantā ranges. Kundalikāmala is Kindalgaon, 11 m. south-west of Jeur. Sēnānā, the donated village, is the modern Saundanē near Kundalgaon. The grant, therefore, undoubtedly belongs to Khāndesh. The Nasik District was then under Dharāśraya-Jayasimha. See No. 28.
³The Navsāri plates, the last record of Gujarat dated in the Kalachuri era, were granted in K. 490 (740 A. C.)
⁴The Nirpan grant of Nāgavardhana mentions Dharāśraya as a younger brother of Pula- kēsin apparently as the ruler of the Nasik District, but the grant is probably spurious; for, Dharāśraya-Jaya- simha was Pulakēśin’s son, not brother. See also Bomb. Gaz., Vol. I, part ii, p. 358, n.1.
⁵Ep. Ind., Vol. VI, pp. 1 ff.
⁶O. Y. C., Vol. II, pp. 239.
⁷Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 303.