|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE SILAHARAS OF NORTH KONKAN
in the Mandaraja vishaya. The village has not been identified, but the vishaya is known to have comprised the region round Divē Āgar. Mummuṇi also completed or repaired the temple at Ambarnāth, which had been commenced by his eldest brother Chhittarāja. He has left an inscription[1] there, which is dated Śaka 982 (A.D. 1060). ..The power of the Śilāhāras weakened further in the reign of Mummuṇi. He had to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Kadambas of Goā. When Shashṭhadēva II visited his court, he received him with great honour. The Narēndra inscription describes this incident in the following words :[2]− “When the exalted valour of Chhaṭṭayadēva in his sport on the ocean reached him, Mummuṇi of the famous Ṭhāṇēya, hearing of it, came into his presence, saw him and led him to his palace, and displayed intense affection ; and he bestowed on him his daughter with much pomp, and gave to his son-in-law five lakhs of gold.” Mummuṇi’s crowned queen Padmaladēvī (called Padmai in the Prince of Wales Museum plates) seems to have taken part in administration.[3] ..As the power of the Śilāhāras declined, the Mōḍha feudatories of Saṁyāna began to assert their independence, and assumed the birudas of the Śilāhāras themselves. The Mōḍha prince Vijjala, in his Chinchaṇī plates[4] dated Śaka 975 (A.D. 1053), calls himself ‘the lord of Tagarapura’ and beras the proud title Śaraṇ-āgata-vajra-pañjara, which is usually met with in Śilāhāra records. Mummuṇi seems to have overthrown this recalcitrant feudatory sometime after Śaka 975 (A.D. 1053), the last known date of prince Vijjala of this family.
.. Mummuṇi, like his two elder brothers, was a patron of poets and learned men. Sōḍḍhala composed his Udayasundarīkathā in his reign and read it in his court.[5] Mummuṇi greatly appreciated it and rewarded the author liberally. Sōḍḍhala thereafter repaired to the court of Vatsarāja, the king of Lāṭa, but he mentions with gratitude the honour he received at the Śilāhāra court during the reigns of the three brothers Chhittarāja, Nāgārjuna and Mummuṇi. _ .. Mummuṇi closed his reign in c. A.D. 1070. The Khārepāṭaṇ plates tell us that there was a civil war (dāyāda-vyasana) after the reign of Mummuṇi, but the contending parties are not named. We have seen before that when Nāgārjuna was killed in battle, his son Anantapāla was a mere boy. So the throne was occupied by Mummuṇi. He may have arranged for the succession of his son after himself, as was done by Maṅgalēśa of the Early Chālukya dynasty before him and Mahādēva of the Yādava family in later times in similar circumstances. As Anantapāla did not acquiesce in this supercession, there was a civil war (dāyāda-vysana) in the Kingdom. Some scholars take the expression as referring to an invasion of North Koṅkaṇ by the Śilāhāras of Kolhāpur ; but they were not dāyādas (inheritors of common ancestral property) of the Northern Śilāhāras. So this interpretation is not plausible. ..
In this war the Kadambas of Goā seem to have supported the son of Mummuṇi. The
Kadamba king Jayakēśin I seems to have occupied North Koṅkaṇ for some time ; for he is
described as the king of Koṅkaṇ in some Kadamba records. In this war the Kadambas seem to
have been aided by the ruler of some Arab colony on the western coast. There were some Arab
settlements on the western coast in those days. The Paṇjīm plates[6] of Jayakēśin mention the
settlement of the Arab merchant Āliyama at Chēmūlya (modern Chaul near Alibāg). There
may have been others like it in South Koṅkaṇ. Like the English and Dutch settlements of
later times, these Arab merchants must have kept some military force for their own protection.
[1] No. 17.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|