North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SILAHARAS OF NORTH KONKAN

named in this order : Kapardin (I); his son Pulaśakti; his son Kapardin (II) (called Laghu-Kapardin); his son Vappuvanna; his son Jhañjha; his brother Gōggi; his son Vajjaḍa (I); his son Aparājita. Verse 10, which mentions the successor of Aparājita, is incomplete and its wording is ambiguous. It seems to state that Aparājita was succeeded by his younger son Vijjaḍa (II), and the letter by his elder brother Kēśidēva. It does not, how-ever, appear from either the Ṭhaṇā plates of Arikēsarin or from those of the other grants of Chhittarāja and his successors that Vajjaḍa was a younger son of Aparājita and that he superceded his elder brother Kēśidēva and usurped the throne. It is now clear from the Divē Āgar plates of Chhittarāja (No. 10, lines 10-12) that the scribe committed a blunder in writing this verse on the present plates. Its correct version is given in v. 5 of the Divē Āgar plates. It shows that Aparājita (called Dīpti-Mārtaṇḍa-dēva there) was succeeded by Vajjaḍa and the latter by Kēśidēva, who is not described there as an elder brother of Vajjaḍa. These are the only two Śilāhāra grants that mention Kēsidēva as the name of the brother and successor of Vajjaḍa II. All other grants name him as Arikēsarin. This Kēśidēva was the first king of that name in the Śilāhāra family. Kēśidēva was succeeded by his nephew Chhittarāja, the son of Vajjaḍa (II).

..Chhittarāja bears in this grant many of the titles usually borne by the Śilāhāras. The Kannaḍa titles mentioned in the Jañjirā plates of Aparājita[1] are, however, absent in this record. Kannadḍa influence seems to have dwindled from the time of Chhittarājadēva.

.. The grant states that Chhittarāja had five ministers (pradhānas), of whom it mentions three by name, viz., the Sarvādhikārin Nāgaṇaiya, Sāndhivigrahika Sīhapaiya and the Karṇāṭa-sāndhivigrahika Kapardin. It is noteworthy the Chhittarāja felt the need for having a special minister for peace and war for the Karṇāṭaka country.

.. The grant is dated, both in words and figures, on Sunday, the fifteenth tithi of the bright fortnight of Kārttika in the Śaka year 948, the cyclic year being Kshaya, on the occasion of a solar eclipse. The date is evidently irregular; for there cannot be a solar eclipse on the fifteenth tithi of the bright fortnight of any month. Kielhorn, who calculated the date, has observed as follows: “As a solar eclipse is coupled here with the 15th tithi of the bright half of the month, the wording of the date must be wrong; and the suggestions which have been made are, either that the solar eclipse may have been erroneously put down in stead of a lunar eclipse, or that the bright half of the month may have been wrongly quoted in stead of the dark half. But the date in no way works out satisfactorily. By the southern luni-solar system Kshaya was Ś. 948 expired. In the year the full-moon tithi of Kārttika ended on the Friday (not Sunday), 28th October A.D. 1026, when there was a lunar eclipse visible in India, 18 h. 18 m. after mean sunrise; the new-moon tithi of the pūrṇimānta Kārttika ended on Thursday, 13th October A.D. 1026, when there was no solar eclipse; and the same tithi of the amānta Kārttika ended on Saturday, 12th November, A.D. 1026, when there was a solar eclipse, not visible in India, 1 h. 49 m. after mean sunrise In Ś. 948 current, there was a solar eclipse, which was visible in India, on the new-moon tithi of the amānta Kārttika. corresponding to Tuesday, 23rd November, A.D. 1025[2].” Bühler thought that while the grant was made on the occasion of an eclipse of the sun, it was written on the date mentioned. But, as Kielhorn has shown, the solar eclipse was not visible in India. It Is more likely that it was made on the occasion of the lunar eclipse on Friday and was actually recorded two days later, on Sunday, 30th October A.D. 1026[3].
___________________

[1] Above, No. 4, lines 48 f.
[2] Ind. Ant., Vol. XXIV, p. 13.
[3] The solar eclipse in A.D. 1026 was not visible in India as Kielhorn has shown, while that in A.D. 1025 was in a current Śaka year. Current years are rarely cited in the inscriptions of the Śilāhāras of North Koṅkaṇa. Besides, the cyclic year Kshaya would not agree with that year. So I would prefer to take the date as referring to the lunar eclipse in A.D. 1026.