South Indian Inscriptions

KALCHURI OF TRIPURI

several later Kalachuri kings. Like the Pārijātamañjari of Madana¹ and the Karnasundarī of Bilhana, the Viddhaśālabhañjikā also seems to have been based on historical events in the career of the contemporary king. From the analysis of the play given above, it will be noticed that it mentions the following events :––

(1) Yuvarājadēva married the daughter of Chandravarman, the king of Lāta, and this matrimonial alliance apparently strengthened his position.

(2) He espoused the cause of Vīrapāla, the king of Kuntala, who had been dethroned by his kinsmen, and sent an army which fought with a confederacy of kings on the bank of the Payōshnī, defeated it and placed Vīrapāla on the throne of Kuntala.

It is not possible to say definitely if the first of these was a historical event. It is not stated to which royal family Chandravarman of Lāta belonged. In the Bālarāmāyana, Rājaśēkhara represents a Chaulukya king as ruling over Lāta and attending the svayamvara of Sītā (Act III, verse 57). From the descriptions of the several kings who attended the svayamvara, which is full of anachronisms, it is plain that Rājaśēkhara is referring to the state of affairs in his own times. So Chandravarman of Lāta may have been intended to be represented as a prince of the Chaulukya dynasty. From some inscriptions² and literary references³ we known that a Chaulukya chief named Bārappa was ruling over Lāta in the third quarter of the 10th century A.C. He was the son of Nimbārka. Earlier members of this line are not known. Perhaps Chandravarman was intended to represent the predecessor of Nimbārka. He would, in that case, be a contemporary of Yuvarājadēva I. This must, of course, remain a conjecture until positive evidence of the earlier rule of this family in Lata becomes available.

The second event described in the Viddhaśālabhañjikā seems to have a foundation in fact. Vīrapāla whose cause was espoused by Yuvarājadēva I is called the king of Kuntala. Kuntala was the name of the country between the Bhīmā and the Vēdavatī, comprising the Southern Maratha Country as well as some Kanarese districts of the Bombay, Madras and Mysore States. In many records the Rāshtrakūtas are referred to as the kings of Kuntala. Vīrapāla was, therefore, apparently a claimant for the Rāshtrakūta throne. His claim seems to have been superseded, and so he sought Yuvarājadēva’s help to gain his kingdom.

Was there such a war of succession about this time in the history of the Rāshtrakūtas ? The Karhad⁴ and Deoli⁵ plates of Krishna III tells us that Gōvinda IV, whose known dates range from 930 A.C. to 933 A.C., was the source of the sportive pleasures of love, his mind was enchained by the eyes of women, he displeased all men by his vicious courses, and when his health was undermined, he ultimately met with death. From some other records, however, we learn that Amōghavarsha III, the uncle of Gōvinda IV, fomented a rebellion among the feudatories of Gōvinda IV which resulted in the kings’s death. The Prince of Wales Museum plates⁶ of the Śilāhāra prince Chhadvaidēva say that Amōghavarsha completely uprooted Gōvinda IV, who was acting unjustly. There was thus a civil war in the Rāshtra-
______________________

¹Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, pp. 96 ff.
² See the Surat plates of Kīrtirāja, dates Śaka 940 (Vienna Oriental Journal, Vol. VII, p. 88); also the Surat plates of Trilōchanapāla, dated Śaka 972 (Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, pp. 201 ff.). As Bārappa was the grandfather of Kīrtirāja, he may be placed about 960 A.C.
³ Bārappa is called the king of Lāta in Hēmachandra’s Dvyāśrayakāvya, and the general of Tailapa, the sovereign of Tilingana, in the Prabandhachintāmani and the Rāsamālā. In the Sukritasankīrtana (Canto II, v. 5), however, he is said to have been the general of the lord Kānyakubja.
⁴ Ep. Ind., Vol. V, p.194.
⁵ Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 283.
⁶ Ibid., Vol. XXVI, pp. 282 ff.