South Indian Inscriptions

BOMBAY KARNATAKA INSCRIPTIONS

VOLUME III

The Rashtrakutas

No. 09 - 38

Among the inscriptions of this dynasty, No. 10, which refers itself to the reign of Jagattunga, mentions a feudatory named Dantiga, who was ruling the nadu.  In the Deoli plates of Krishna III one Dantiga is stated to have been killed along with the Vappuka by Krishna III.  But the present inscription is not dated and has to be placed on grounds of palaeography in the 9^th century A.D.  So it is not likely that he was a contemporary of Krishna III. As the record is of the 9^th century A.D., the Jagattunga to whose reign it belongs may be Govinda III.

An inscription (No. 14) from Devageri, which belongs to the reign of Amoghavarsha but which is not dated is assignable, on palaeographic grounds, to the 9^th century A.D.  The only Amoghavarsha who ruled in this century is Amoghavarsha I.  In this record, India, i.e., Indra, who is described as the priya-tanay-atmaja of the king, is stated to be governing Banavasi Twelve-thousand.  If the expression priya-tanay-atmaja is taken in its ordinary sense of ‘sib’s son’, Indra would be the grandson of Amoghavarsha.  But from no other source do we know of any Indra who was the grandson of Amoghavarsha.  We know however that Krishna II had a grandson called Indra (Indra III).  But Krishna II is usually given in his inscriptions, the distinguishing epithet of Akalvarsha and not Amoghavarsha.  The only exception however is theVenkatapur inscription which applies to him the epithet of Amoghavarsha.  As has been suggested by the editor of the Venkatapur inscription, the epithet amghavarsha used in it – if it is not a scribal error – should be taken to have been borne by Krishna II as well as by his father.  If that be so, and if we consider that the tile Amoghavarsha applied to the ruling king in the record under review to be a title of Krishna II then the Indra mentioned here as the governor of Banavasi Twelve-thousand would be the grandson of Krishna II and the therefore Indra III.  Otherwise the epithet Amoghavarsha will have to be taken as a mistake for Aklavarsha.  Another interesting fact disclosed by this inscription is that this Indra had a wife named Govindabbe who was administering the village (i.e., Devageri).  If, as surmised above, Indra of the record is identical with Indra III Govindabbe would be a hitherto unknown wife of his.  It may be noted however that Jagattunga III, the grandson of Amoghavarsha I, had a queen called Govindamba of the Kalachuri family.

In two records of Krishna II, Lokate is mentioned as the governor of Banavasi.  One of them (No. 17) bearing no date, states that Kalivitta was the son of Lokate and was administering the group of villages called Punnavanti Twelve.  These person are apparently identical with homonymous chiefs of the Chellaketana family.  This relationship between Lokate and Kalivitta is disclosed for the first time by the record under review.

Another governor of Banavasi, named Rajati (Rajaditya) figures also in a record (No. 16) of Krishna II and it is dated Saka 829 (A.D. 907-08).  Lokate or Lokaditya of the Chellaketana family is known to have been governing Banavasi under Krishna II until at least A.D. 904-05.  The only date known hitherto for Rajaditya is A.D. 907-08.  In A.D. 913-14 Kalivitta was the governor of this province and in A.D. 915, we find a certain Dhora governing he same region.  So Rajaditya must have been placed in charge of this region sometime after A.D. 904-05 and continued to hold it till some date before A.D. 913, probably even after the reign of Krishna II.  Now the question is whether this Rajaditya was also a Chellaketana.  In his account of the Chellaketana family Dr. Fleet expressed a doubt whether he (Rajaditya) belonged to this family.  But Rajaditya of a collaterl line of the Chalukyas who might be placed in this period has been brought to light be a copper-plate grant published in the Mysore Archaeological Report, 1935, No. 40.  This Rajaditya is, according to that record, the great grandfather of the donor of the grant, who was also called Rajaditya and for whom the record furnishes the date A.D. 951.  In other words, two generations intervened between this Rajaditya (Rajaditya II) and his great grandfather of the same name (Rajaditya I).  Allowing an average of twenty-five years to each generation, the period of Rajdtiya I would be approximately between A.D. 875 and 900.  He would then he a contemporary of Krishna II.  This surmise is strengthened by the fact that Rajaditya I had married a daughter of Akalavarsha, who in all probability is Krishna II.  Consequently it is not improbable that he is identical with Rajati of the record under review (i.e., No. 16)

This leads us to the problem whether Rajaditya mentioned as the governor of Banavasi in another Rashtrakuta inscription (No 36) is identical with Rajati (Rajaditya), the subordinate of Krishna II (mentioned in the previous paragraph).  This inscription refers itself to the reign of a king, of whose name only the first letter Ja is preserved.  The characters of this record are assignable to the 9^th century A.D.  The only name or title beginning with Ja among the rulers of this region in this period (the Rashtrakutas) is Jagattunga.  Hence the full name of this king is in all likelihood Jagattunga.  This conclusion is borne out by another inscription of the same period, which clearly refers itself to the reign of Jagattunga, under whom Banavasi province was being governed by a chief whose name is partially preserved as ditya which may most probably stand for Rajaditya (No. 34).  Now in the Rashtrakuta family there were four Jagattungas, viz., Govinda II, Govinda III, Jagattunga, the son of Krishna II, who may be called Jagattunga III, and Jagattunga (IV), the younger brother of Krishna III.  Since we do not know of any Rajaditya as being the governor of Banavasi under Govinda II, this record may have to be referred to the time of either Govinda II or Jagattunga, the son of Krishna II (i.e., Jagattunga III).  Jagattunga is stated in both the records noticed above, in unequivocal terms to be ‘ruling’ (rajyam-geyye).  If we consider the Jagattunga of these inscriptions to be Jagattunga III the statement that he was reigning comes into conflict with the accounts of the reigning kings found in records of this dynasty which say that he did not rule at all.  Therefore there are two possible ways of explaining this discrepancy.  One is that Jagattunga, son of Krishna II, is to be taken as having reigned, though for a short period.  The last date known for Krishna II is A.D. 912 and the earliest date known for Indra II is A.D. 915.  In this short interval between A.D. 912 and 915, Jagattunga might have ruled.  The other explanation would be that Rajaditya of these records is different from his name sake who was the subordinate of Krishna II and that he was a subordinate of either Govinda II or Govinda III.  But Palaeographically these inscriptions are too late for the period of Govinda III, the last year of whose reign is A.D. 813, though we known of Rajaditya who was also his subordinate.

\D7