THE SILAHARAS OF KOLHAPUR
..The history of this country after the downfall of the Early Chālikyas is obscure. It was
plainly included in the empire of the Later Rāshṭrakūṭas, and was probably placed under
the rule of a feudatory family. Its capital in those days was probably Karahaṭa, modern
Karhāḍ in the Sātāra District. Some later kings of the Sinda family in Karnāṭaka describe
themselves in their grants as Karahāṭa-pura-var-ādhīśvara (the lords of Karahāṭa, the best of
towns)[1]. In accordance with the interptation of similar expressions, this must be taken to
mean that they originally hailed from Karahāṭa. No. records of the Sindas have yet been
found at Karhāḍ itself, but we have a fragmentary copper-plate grant, found somewhere
in Western Mahārāshṭra, of the Sinda king Ādityavarman, who was probably ruling over
this country about the middle of the tenth century A.D.[2] Ādityavarman mentions in this grant
his grandfather Bhīma and his father Muñja. The plates record the grant of the village Kiṇihikā on the bank of the Indra river, which had a layana-giri in its vicinity. This description
suits the village Kinhai on the bank of the Indrāyaṇī river, about 16 miles north by west of
Poonā, which has caves in the neighbourhood. Ādiytyavarman had the title of Mahāsāmanta. His grants is dated in the Śaka year 887 (A.D. 965). He evidently owed allegiances to the Rāshṭrakūṭas of Mānyakhēṭa, though he does not mention his suzerain, evidently because the power
of the Imperial family was dwindling at this time. He was ruling over the Southern Marāṭhā
Country as shown by the above identification of the village granted by him. His capital is not
mentioned in that grant, but in view of his descent from the Sinda family and the description
in some grants of the Sindas that they originally hailed from karahāṭa, it may have been then
at that town. Another copper-plate grant of this family was found at Nārāyaṇgāon near
Junnar in the Poonā District.[3] It is still unpublished; but it is said to be dated Śaka 933
(A.D. 1011-12). It shows that the Sindas continued to rule over the Poonā and Sātārā districts
till the first quarter of the 11th cen. A.D.
..As shown below, the Śilāhāras of Kolhāpur rose just about this time. As no descendants
of the aforementioned Sinda king Ādityavarman ruling after A.D. 1012 are known, it would
not be wrong to surmise that Jatiga II of the Kolhāpur branch may have overthrown Ādityavarman’s successor and established himself in that country. Karahāṭa may, in that case, have
been the first capital of this Śilāhāra family. As no Śilāhāra records have, however, been
discovered at Karhāḍ, it is not unlikely that the seat of government was soon shifted to Kolhāpur where several records of the family have been found. Still, this branch of the Śilāhāras is
often mentioned as the ruler of Karahāṭa in literature and in the records of some of their
contemporaries.[4]
..Like the other two families, this family also traced its descent from Jīmūtavāhana and
had the standard of the Golden Eagle. Like the Śilāhāras of North Koṅkaṇ, this family
also bore the hereditary title Tagara-puravar-ādhīśvara ‘the lords of Tagara, the best of towns’,
but their genealogies do not disclose any points of mutual contact. The family deity of this
branch was the goddess Mahālakshmī of Kolhāpur, whose boon they claim in their grants to
have secured.[5] Inscriptions mention three capitals of this branch, viz. (1) the hill fort of Khiḷi-
____________
Pali, Sanskrit and Old kanarese Inscriptions, No. 119.
Ep. Ind., Vol. XXV, pp. 164 f.
Ibid., p. 164, n. 1. It seems that this Sinda family then repaired to the Bijāpur District. The Tiḍguṇḍi plates
(Bijāpur District) dated in the seventh current year of Vikramāditya VI’s reign (Śaka 1004) mention the
following princes-Bhīma-his son Sindarāja-his Muñja. son Muñja was ruling in Śaka 1004 (A.D.
1082-83). Two of these names are like those in the grant of Ādityavaramn. Bhīma is described as the ruler
of the country of Pratyaṇḍaka-4000. Karahāṭa also was supposed to contain 4000 villages. Some scholars,
But this does not appear to be correct.
P. B. Desai, A History of Karnāṭaka, p. 176.
|