|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
ADMINISTRATION
(the hero of heroes), Gaṇḍa-vaṅgara[1] (gold among heroes), Nanni-samudra (the ocean of truth), Pusi-gañju-vāta[2] (one who is afraid of falsehood), villa-viḍenga[3] (clever in the use of the bow), Birud-aṅka-Rāma[4] (Rāma among title-holders) etc. Some of the words in their Sanskrit charters, which were really Kannaḍa, were misunderstood for a long time. Only recently their meaning has been properly ascertained.[5] In North Koṅkaṇ this Kannaḍa influence declined in the reign of Chhittarāja (first half of the 11th century A.D.), as Marāṭhī became the language of the rules ; but in Kolhāpur and the neigbouring region, which were in the heart of the Kannaḍa territory, it continued to the last. See e.g. the following birudas which occur in the last known grant of Bhōja II of Kolhāpur :- Iḍuvar-Āditya[6] (the Sun among those that attack), Maṇḍalika-gaṇḍa-pēṇḍāra[7] (an anklet in the form of a great feudatory), Arasāsan-āri-Madana-Mahēśvara[8] (a veritable Mahēśvara to the god of love in the form of the enemies that were defying royal orders) etc. .. As feudatories, the Silaharas were required to pay an annual tribute to their suzerains, to do homage in the imperial court, and to take part with their forces in the wars of their feudal lords. We get occasional references to the Kolhāpur Śilāhāras having taken part in the wars of the Later Chālukyas and made hostile kings submit to them.[9] In other respects they were independent for all practical purposes. The Northern Śilāhāras cited the genealogy of their suzerains in the beginning of their early copper-plate grants, but there is no explicit mention of their being required to obtain their permission before donating villages or lands for charitable and other purposes. They evidently enjoyed more privileges than the Arab feudatories of the Rāshṭrakūṭas ruling as Saṁyāna,[10] who were required to take such permission.
.. Succession to the throne usually passed from the father to the eldest son. In some cases the ruling king appointed his younger son or sons to rule some provinces of his kingdom.[11] Similarly, there are instances of a ruler having placed his younger brothers in charge of the outlying provinces of his kingdom.[12] The names of these contemporary collaterals are sometimes mentioned in royal charters, but that does not mean that they all come to the throne. .. In the history of the Śilāhāras there were very few cases of internecine strife. After the death of Vajjaḍa, his brother Chhadvaidēva seems to have usurped the throne,[13] but he had soon to forego it. His name has been omitted from the later genealogy. After Nāgārjuna was killed during the invasion of his kingdom by the Later Chālukya king Sōmēśvara I, his brother Mummuṇi sat on the throne as Nāgārjuna’s son Anantapāla was a minor. Mummuṇi may have designed to leave the throne to his son, but this was contested by Anantapāla, which led to a civil war in the Śilāhāra kingdom.[14] Anantapāla finally emerged victorious from it. ..In his own state the power of the Śilāhāra king was supreme. He appointed provincial
governors and ministers, and was free to declare war or make peace as he thought fit. He
[1] No. 5, line 49.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|