North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SILAHARAS OF KOLHAPUR

..The language is Sanskrit intermixed with a few Kannaḍa words such as magila, maḷava and kutruva. The record is composed partly in verse and partly in prose like the preceding grant. As regards orthography, we may note that the consonant following r is doubled in some cases (see Kīrtti-rājō, line 7), v is used for b as in mahāśavda, line 16, and consonants are unnecessarily doubled in many places (see maulli, line 9, akhillān. line 12 etc.).

.. The inscription refers itself to the reign of the Mahāmanḍalēśvara Gaṇḍarāditya of the Śilāhāra dynasty. He bears in this grant all the titles mentioned in the previous inscription. The inscription opens with a verse glorifying the Boar incarnation of Vishṇu, which occurs usually in the beginning of the grants of the Chālukya dynasty. This is an indication that Gaṇḍarāditya had come into close contact with the contemporary Chālukya Suzerian, and had probably become his feudatory, though this is not stated explicitly.

.. The inscription gives in the beginning the following genealogy of the ruling king Gaṇḍarāditya—Jatiga (I); his son Nāyivarman; his son Chandrarāja; Jatiga (II) ; his elder son Gōṅkalla; his brother Gūhalēśa (I); his younger brother Kīrtirāja; Chandrāditya; Mārasiṁha, son of Gōṅkala; his son Gūhala(II); his brother Bhōjadēva ; and his younger brother Gaṇḍarāditya. This genealogy agrees mostly with that in brother No. 46, grant, but the name of Chandrāditya, brother of Goṅkala, has been added in this grant, while that of Ballāla, brother of Bhōja, mentioned in the previous grant has been omitted. The reason for this addition and omission appears to be this—Though the inscriptions mention several sons of Jatiga II and of Mārasiṁha, they did not all reign as kings. Some of them were placed in charge of the provinces of the kingdom[1]. So though their names are included in the genealogies to make them complete, the latter are not to be regarded as succession lists of the rulers of the Kolhāpur Branch of the Śilaharas.

.. The object of the present inscription is to record the grant, by Gaṇḍarāditya, of two nivartanas of land in the village of Kōṁnijavāḍa situated in the khampaṇa (subdivision) of Kōḍavalli comprised in the Miriñji-dēśa to twelve Brāhmaṇas for their residence and maintenance as well as for keeping the three-spired temple of Khēḍāditya at Brahmapurī in proper repairs as requested by the Amātya Maillapaiyya. The land was purchased from the two Nārgāvuṇḍas Rājaya and Sēnaya, who were the joint owners of it. The Amātya added four more nivartanas of land in the same village to make the gift one of six nivartanas. The measure of land was the daṇḍa current in Kuṇḍi.

.. It seems that the minister repaired the old temple of Khēḍāditya (i.e. the Sun), and adding two more shrines to it and thus making it three-spired, established there the images of two other gods, viz. Brahmā and Vishṇu. The king was encamped at the village Vallavāḍa at the time of making this grant. The grant was, however, actually made in the presence of the holy Khēḍāditya in Brahmapurī. The king may have gone there for the purpose.

.. The grant is dated in the expired Saka year 1048 (expressed in words only), the cyclic year being Parābhava, on the occasion of the Dakshiṇāyana saṅkrānti, on Saturday, the fourth tithi of the bright fortnight of Āshāḍha. The date regularly corresponds to Saturday, the 26th June A.D. 1126, on which day the Dakshiṇāyana or Karkaṭaka saṅkrānti occurred at 8 h. 10 m. after mean sunrise. The cyclic year current at the time was Parābhava according to the southern luni-solar system.

.. As for the places mentioned in the present grant, Miriñji has already been identified[2]. Brahmapurī still retains its ancient name and is a suburb of Kolhāpur on the bank of the Pañchagaṅgā, where a relice casket was found several years ago[3], and where excavations,
_________________

[1] R. G. Bhandarkar also thought that all the sons of Gōṅkala might not have ruled.
[2] See above, p. 201.
[3] Ind. Cult., Vol. II, p. 418, n. 4.