South Indian Inscriptions

KALCHURI OF TRIPURI

The recently published Murud plates of the Silahara prince Aparajita state that Amoghavarasha III exterminated his wicked enemies in a fierce battle fought at the capital of the Rashtrakuta prince Karkara.¹ The latter is probably identical with Karkaraja, the lord of Achalapura, mentioned in the Sudi and Kudlur plates as an antagonist of Butuga, the son-in-law of Baddiga-Amoghavarsha III.² Achalapura, which is identified with Ellichpur³ in the Amaravati District of Madhya Pradesh, was, therefore, the scene of the battle. This town lies only about 10 miles west of the Purna (ancient Payoshni). Rajasekhara’s statement that the battle was fought on the bank of the Payoshni is thus corroborated by independent inscriptional evidence.

This Karkara and his younger brother Bappuva were probably relatives and staunch supporters of Gōvinda IV. The Rāshtrakūta Emperor had made Bappuva the ruler of North Karnātaka, and placed Karkara in charge of Vidarbha. From the Mahākūta temple inscription⁴ we learn that Bappuvarasa (who is plainly identical with the aforementioned Bappuva) granted three rice-fields to Nandikēśvara in 933 A.C. In this inscription he is called Mahāsāmanta and is said to have attained the pañchamahāśabda. He is further described as a very Bhairava on a minor scale to the assemblage of the enemies of the brave Gōpāla. This Gōpāla is probably identical with the Rāshtrakūta Emperor Gōvinda IV. Bappuva seems to have taken a leading part in the civil war which raged in the Rāshtrakūta kingdom towards the end of Gōvinda IV’s reign. He at first won some successes for his lord, but was afterwards defeated by the Chālukya chief Arikēsarin II, who, as stated in Pampa’s Vikramārjunavijaya,5 fought for Baddiga. Arikēsarin and other allies of Baddiga then seem to have marched on the imperial capital Mānyakhēta where they killed Gōvinda IV.6

In the meantime, Yuvarājadēva’s army under his able general invaded the Rāshtrakūta kingdom from the north. Baddiga⁷ and probably his valiant son Krishna III also
_______________________

(Continued from last page.) accession; for, it is placed first among the achievements of Krishna III as crown prince. For these and some other reasons, it appeared plausible that Yuvarājadēva, on political grounds, backed up some other claimant than Baddiga, and fought with the latter. A. B. O. R. I., Vol. XI, pp. 369 ff. Prof. Nilkanta Sastri has, however, recently pointed out that the aforementioned verse in the Karhad plates does not record any defeat of the Kalachuri king, but only glorifies Krishna III by stating that he excelled even Sahasrārjuna, the progenitor of the royal family in which his mother and wife were born. The passage from an unpublished manuscript cited below, p. lxxxiii, note ⁴, which has recently come to my notice, leaves no room for doubt that Prof. Sastri’s interpretation is correct; for, it states that Amōghavarsha continued to stay at the Chēdi capital even after his enemies were exterminated, while Krishna was governing the kingdom by his command. The difficulty presented by Rājaśēkhara’s statement that Yuvarājadēva married Vīrapāla’s daughter still remains. Perhaps, that incident, as suggested by Dr. Altekar, is a mere poetic invention intended to complicate the love affairs in the drama. See his Rāshtrakūtas, etc., p.110.

³ The ancient place-name has now been restored.
⁴ Ind. Ant., Vol. X, p. 104; Vol. XVIII, p. 316.
⁵ Ep. Ind., Vol. XIII, p. 329.
⁶See Pampa’s Vikramārjunavijaya, āśvāsa IX; Ep. Ind., Vol. XIII, pp. 328-29. The description in the Deoli and Karhad plates that Gōvinda IV died early because his health was undermined by his dissolute life is myth invented by his enemies. The Prince of Wales Museum plates recently edited by me (Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVI, pp. 282 ff.) state that Amōghavarsha III completely uprooted Gōjjiga (i.e., Gōvinda IV) who had acted unjustly.
⁷ Rājaśēkhara states in his play that the General Vatsa placed Vīrapāla at the head, when he marched to the Payōshnī.