South Indian Inscriptions

THE MAIN BRANCH

Pravarasēna built a magnificant temple of Rāmachandra at Pravarapura when the capital was shifted there. This also was evidently done at the instance of his mother who was a worshipper of that god. Some beautiful panels which decorated the temple have recently been found in excavations at Pavnar.

...Narēndrasēna, who succeeded his father Pravarasēna II in circa 450 A.C., is known from the unfinished Bālāghāṭ plates¹ of his son. His feudatory Bharatabala also makes a covert reference to him in his Bamhanī palaltes.² The Bālāghāṭ plates state that he enticed the ancestral fortune by means of the confidence which he had created by his already acquired noble qualities. This was taken to mean that there was some trouble about his succession. Dr. Kielhorn thought that he might have superseded his elder brother.³ It has also been suggested that there was a division of the kingdom between Narēndrasēna and his brother whose name is lost in the inscription in Ajaṇṭā Cave XVI.⁴ This view is now proved to be untenable as the princes mentioned in the Ajaṇṭā inscription belonged to the Vatsagulma branch. There is no clear indication of a disputed succession in this period, the description in the Bālāghāṭ plates being only a poetic way of stating that Narēndrasena attracted royal fortune by his noble qualities.

...Narēndrasēna married Ajjhitabhaṭṭārikā, a princess of Kuntala. She probably belonged to the Rāshṭrakūṭa family of Mānapura, which was ruling over the Southern Maratha Country, comprising the Sātārā, Kōlhāpur and Shōlāpur Districts of the Mahārāshṭra State. The Pāṇḍarangapallī plates discovered in a village near Kōlhāpur describe Mānāṅka, the founder of the family, as the ruler of the prosperous Kuntala country.⁵ This royal family appears to have wielded considerable power and sometimes came into conflict with the Vatsagulma branch of the Vākāṭaka family. During the time of Chandragupta II it came under the sphere of Gupta influence and, as tradition says, its government was carried on under the direction of the Gupta Emperor. Kālidāsa, the famous Sanskrit poet, was sent as an ambassador to the court of the contemporary Kuntala king who was probably Dēvarāja. Ajjhitabhaṭṭārikā, married by Narēndrasēna, may have been the daughter of Dēvarāja’s son Avidhēya, mentioned in the Pāṇḍaraṅgapallī plates, who flourished in circa 440-455 A.C.

...Narendrasena followed an aggressive policy in the east and the north. The Balāghāṭ plates of his son Pṛithivīshēna II state that he had, by his prowess, subjugated the enemies and that his commands were honoured by the lords of Kōsalā, Mekalā and Mālava.⁶ Of these countries, Mālava had till then been under the direct administration of the Guptas since the overthrow of the Western Kshatrapas. About the middle of the fifth century A.C.,
––––––––––––––––

¹ No. 18, line 30.
² No. 19, lines 31-34.
³ Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 269.
⁴ S. K. Aiyangar, Ancient India, p. 132.
⁵ D. C. Sircar interprets the expression śrīmat-Kuntalānāṁ praśāsitā in these plates as ‘the chastiser of the prosperous Kuntalas’ and makes Mānāṅka not the ruler but the vanquisher of the Kuntala country. He further identifies the Kuntalas with the Kadambas of the Kanarese country. H.C.I.P., Vol. III, p. 200. It is difficult to accept these views. As I have shown elsewhere, the root praśās, when used with the name of a country, usually means to rule and when used with persons, it means to chastise. That this was the intended meaning is also clear from the contrast in the two expressions sa-Vidarbh- Aśmaka-vijētā and srīmat-Kuntalānāṁ praśāsitā used in the plates to describe Mānāṅka. The Daśakumāracharita, in its eighth uctiehhvāsa, mentions the ruler of Kuntala separately from that of Vanavāsī. This shows clearly that the ruler of Kuntala did not belong to the Kadamba family which held Vanavāsī (modern Banavāsī in North Kānāḍā).
⁶ No. 18, line 27-28.