|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SILAHARAS OF NORTH KONKAN
Gaṅgavāḍī and Nolambavāḍī were thus included in the Rāshṭrakūṭa Empire during the time of Amōghavarsha III, though they were actually governed by his feudatories. These were evidently two of the three countries implied in V. 10. The third country must, of course, have been Kuntala, the home-province of the Rāshṭrakūṭas. ..Kṛishṇa III, who succeeded Amōghavarsha III, is eulogised in five verses (11-15), but the description is merely conventional. He is said to have made several new grants and restored old ones, and to have overthrown four kinds of feudatories.[1] The genealogy of Rāshṭrakūṭa rules stops with Kṛishṇa III, during whose time the present grant was evidently made. .. With V. 16 begins the description of the Śilāhāra dynasty. The dynastic name appears here in the form Śīlāra. Verse 17 mentions the Vidyādhara Jīmūtavāhana, the son of Jīmūtakētu, who offered his body to save serpents. His descendants assumed the name of Śīlāra in order to give protection to the ocean when it was harassed by the arrow of Jāmadagnya (i.e. Para- śurāma).[2] Since then the princes of this dynasty came to be known as Śīlāra. This is a novel interpretation of the dynastic name, which does not occur anywhere else. The text does not make clear what is meant by Śīlāra and no Sanskrit lexicon or dictionary gives this word. .. Verses 20-25 name the following Śilāhāra princes:−Kapardin (I) ; his son Pulaśakti; his son Kapardin (II) ; his son Vappuvana; his son Jhañjha; his younger brother Gōggi; his son Vajjaḍa (I) ; and finally, his younger brother Chhadvaya (or Chhadvaidēva), the donor of the present plates. The description of all these princess is quite conventional and altogether devoid of historical interest. About Chhadvaidēva we are told that he bore the title of Mahāsāmanta and attained the right to the five great (musical) sounds.
.. Chhadvaidēva is not mentioned in any other Śilāhāra grant. The reason for this omission is not clear. It cannot be said that Chhadvaidēva’s name was omitted because he was a collateral ; for Śilāhāra records[3] invariably mention Jhañjha and Arikēsarin though their progeny did not reign. Chhadvaidēva not only states that the grant had been promised by his elder brother and was only executed by himself, but also pays a tribute of praise to him in Verse 24. Nor does he seem to have been only a regent during the minority of his nephew Aparājita; for he claims the title Mahāsāmanta for himself and does not even mention his nephew, the supposed de jure ruler of the kingdom. The record may, therefore, be supposed to be spurious. Apart from the absence of the date, however, there does not appear any cause for suspicion. As stated before, the characters, though very carelessly written and engraved, are of the age to which the record refers itself. There are no discrepancies in the description of the Rāshṭrakūṭa and Śilāhāra genealogies which occur in verses 7-15 and 20-25 respectively. On the other hand, the grant furnishes certain details which, though not met with in other records, are not inconsistent with their evidence. The draft of the genealogical and formal portions is not identical with that used in several later Śilāhāra records evidently because the latter was not stereotyped in that age. There does not, therefore, appear any reason why the present grant should be regarded as spurious. Perhaps, Chhadvaidēva was a usurper, and so his name has been omitted in later Śilāhāra genealogies.
..
This is the earliest known copper-plate grant of the Śilāhāra dynasty of North Koṅkaṇ.
It shows what position the Śilāhāras enjoyed during the hey-day of Rāshṭrakūṭa paramountcy.
[1] The Karhāḍ plates of Kṛishṇa III also mention four of feudatories, but they are said to have received
different kinds of treatment at his hands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|