South Indian Inscriptions

EARLY CHALUKYAS OF GUJARAT

Jayabhata IV whose kingdom the Arabs must have overrun before they advanced as far as Navsāri.

The Navsāri plates record that Avanijanāśraya-Pulakēśin infliected a defeat on the invading Arab army. This raid is evidently later than that which was directed against Broach during the governorship of Junaid; for, as we have seen, the latter must have taken place in circa 725 A.C., as Junaid was succeeded by Tamīn about 726 A.C. The raid against Navsāri is not recorded by Muslim chroniclers probably because the Arabs this time sustained a crushing defeat.¹ The Graphic and detailed description of the flight, which for its vigour is unsurpassed in inscriptional literature, suggests that it must have been composed soon after the fight. Again, the wording of the eulogistic part of the grant shows that it must have been drafted after the annexation of the Gurjara principality.² We may, therefore, date the Arab raid about 739 A.C.

The Chālukya, suzerain of Bādāmi, whose name has not been specifically mentioned, but who must have been Vikramāditya II (733-747 A.C.), was so much pleased with Pulakēśin’s heroism that he conferred on him the four titles Dakshināpathasādhāra (the Pillar of Dakshināpatha), Chalukkikulālankāra(the Ornament of the Chālukya family) Prithivīvallabha (the dear Lord of the Earth) and Anivartakānivartayitri (the Repeller of the unrepellable). Pulakēśin seems to have annexed the territory to the north of the Kīm after this Arab raid.

Avanijanāśraya-Pulakēśin is the last known ruler of the Gujarat branch of the Chālukyas. Within eighteen years after the date of the Navsāri plates was find a Rāshtrakūta family established in the Surat District. The Antroli-Chharoli plates³ of the Rāshtrakūta prince Karka II, dated Śaka 679 (757 A.C.), record the grant of the village Sthāvarapallikā (the modern Chharoli in the Surat District). The country to the north of the Kim was occupied by a feudatory Chāhamāna family⁴ which owed allegiance to the Imperial Pratīhāra dynasty of Jābālipura (modern Jālōr).⁵

The country under the rule of the Gujarat Chalukyas originally extended along the western coast from the Kim in the north to the Thana District in the South. Eastward it stretched up to the Ghats. This kingdom was extended by Pulakesin who annexed the Gurjara territory to it.⁶ Mangalapuri, not yet identified, was the capital of Mangalarasa,
__________

¹ Al Biladuri, however, has recorded that in the days of Tamim, the successor of Junaid, the Musalmans retired from several parts of India and left some of their positions. E.D.H.I., Vol. I, p. 126.
² The eulogistic portion of the record on the Navsari plates contains some expressions which are known to occur only in Gurjara grants; see below, p. 280.
³ J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. XVI, p. 106.
⁴ See the Hansot plates of the Chahamana Bhartrivaddha, Ep. Ind., Vol. XII, p.197.
⁵ A.B.O.R.I., Vol. XVIII, P. 398.
⁶ Some scholars suppose that the Chalukya rule extended to Kaira in North Gujarat; for, it was from a marriage pandal at Khetaka (modern Kaira) that a Chalukya princess was abducted by the Rashtrakuta prince Indraraja, father of Dantidurga. See Ep. Ind., Vol. XVIII, P. 243. The princess is supposed to be the daughter of either Mangalarasa or Pulakesin. This view is open to several objections. If the Ellora plates of Dantidurga are dated in Saka 663, they would show that the marriage must have taken place in any case not later than 720 A.C. Kaira was not then included in the dominion of the Gujarat Chalukyas. Besides, it is doubtful if khetaka-mandapa in that passage refers to any place-name at all. It appears there as an adjective of rane and means ‘(in the battle) in which there was pandal made by the shields (of the fighting men)’. Even if Khetaka is taken as a place-name, it cannot refer to Kaira : for (i) it was not included in the kingdom of the Gujarat Chalukyas; and (ii) it was far away from the principality of Indra II. It is doubtful if he was then powerful enough to penetrate so far to the north. Besides, there were other places of that name in the dominion of the Chalukya Emperor where the incident could have happened. See my article on Dantidurga in J.M.S.G.U., Vol. I, p. 36, n. 22.