South Indian Inscriptions

INCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF TRIPURI

obviously identifying the Lakshmņarāja mentioned in it with the homonymous king who was the son of Yuvarājadēva I alias Kēyūravarsha. The mention of Amōghavarsha in 1.12 seems to have corroborated this view ; because a king of that name, viz., Baddiga- Amōghavarsha III, the son-in-law of Yuvarājadēva-Kēyūravarsha, flourished in that period.¹ But R.B. Hiralal’s reading of the date is probably incorrect. The first figure closely resembles that of the tithi in the Chandrēhē inscription of Prabōdhaśiva² and the latter was read as five by Dr. Kielhorn. Other instances in which the figure stands for five can also be cited.³ So the date of the present inscription is 593 and this, being referred to the Kalachuri era, corresponds to 841-2 A.C. The mention of Amōghavarsha in this record does not also preclude this reading ; for this Amōghavarsha would be the first Rāshțrakūța king of that name who ruled from circa 814 to 880 A.C. We know that the royal families of the Rāshtrakūtas and the Kalachuris were matrimonially connected in the ninth century also ; for Amōghavarsha I’s son Krishņa II was married to Kōkalla I’s daughter,⁴ though this marriage may not have taken place before 842 A.C.⁵ Besides, Amōghavarsha I was of a spiritual temperament. He was a fervent devotee, at least in the early part of his life, of Hindu deities. The Sanjān plates tell us that he had cut off a finger of his left hand and offered it to Mahālakshmī to ward off a public calamity.⁶ It is not, therefore, unlikely that Amōghavarsha had gone to the Chēdi country to pay his respects to the holy person who put up the present inscription. The mention of Nāgabhata’s defeat in 1.9 may also be adduced in support of the above-mentioned date. This Nāgabhata is evidently Nāgabhata II of the Gurjara-Pratihāra dynasty who was completely routed by Amōghavarsha’s father Gōvinda III.⁷ Nāgabhata was not living in 841-2 A.C., the date of the present inscription ; for, according to the Jain work Prabhāvakacharita,⁸ he died in V. 890 (833-4 A.C.) ; nor is Amōghavarsha known to have raided North India like his father and grand-father. The defeat of Nāgabhata II mentioned in this inscription must be that inflicted on him by Gōvinda III before 800 A.C. The personage, who in the preceding line is described as the destroyer of great kings as a thunder-bolt is of high mountains, is probably Gōvinda III. The name of the king whom he destroyed (samjahrē) is lost at the end of the line. It is not known in what connection the defeat of Nāgabhata is mentioned in 1.9 ; but as the name of Amōghavarsha occurs only after two lines, it is clear that the event must have happened not long before the reign of Amōghavarsha. The latter must consequently be the first king of that name; for, otherwise, there would be a long gap of more than one hundred and thirty years between the two events, if the king is identified with Baddiga-Amōghavarsha III. Lakshmaņarāja, during whose reign the present inscription was put up, was, therefore, the predeces- _________________________

¹ For Amōghavarsha III we have the dates 937 and 939 A.C. (See E. C., Vol. XI, pp. 29 and 30).
² No. 44, below.
³ See, for instance, the figure of the year and the tithi of the Bālērā plates of the Chaulukya Mūlarāja, Ep. Ind., Vol. X, plate facing p.78; the figure of the year in the Khajurāhō inscription of Kōkkala, C. A. S. I. R., Vol. XXI, pl. XIX, and that of the tithi in the Pālanpur plates of Bhīmadēva, Ep. Ind., Vol. XXI, plate facing p. 172.
⁴ Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, pp. 263 f.
⁵ As I have shown elsewhere (Ep. Ind., Vol. XXIII, p. 217), Amōghavarsha I was born about 799 A.C. He was, therefore, forty-two years old at the time of the present inscription, but it is not likely that in 841-2 A.C. his son Krishņa II was already married to Lakshmaņarāja’s grand-daughter, for he is known to have reigned till 914 A. C. Perhaps Amōghavarsha had gone to Tripurī to seek the Kalachuri king’s help, when he was deposed in the early part of his reign.
⁶ Ep. Ind., Vol. XVIII, p. 248.
^{7 vLoc. cit., p. 247.
8 Ibid., Vol. XIV, p. 179, n}