Epigraphia Indica Vol 33

SR No.: 032587
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: D C Sircar
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1959
Total Pages: 514
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 29 MB

Page 157

106
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIII & staunch devotee of Siva. The possibility therefore is that king Pratāparudra of our inscrip tion is identical with the Kakatiya monarch Prataparudra I.
There is a tradition that the great Saiva teacher Mallikārjuna-panditārādhya was the preceptor of the Kākatiya king Ganapati (1199-1260 A.D.) who was the brother's son of Pratāparudra 1. This, however, is clearly wrong since the Malkapuram inscription represents the great Saiva teacher Vibvēsvarasambhu, hailing from Pūrvagrãma in the Rādha division of Gauda, as the dikshā-guru of king Ganapati. But, confused even if it is, the above tradition seems to be based on the fact that a Kākatiya monarch was amongst the disciples of the great Panditārādhya. If such was the case, the Kakatiya disciple of Mallikarjuna-panditärädhya was probably none else than Pratäparudra I since the contemporaneity of the Saiva teacher and the Kakatiya king has been admitted by scholars. Under the circumstances, it may not be unreasonable to identify Pratāparudra and Mallikarjuna, mentioned in the inscription under study, respectively with the Kākatiya king Pratāparudra I and the Saiva teacher Mallikarjuna-panditärädhya at least tentatively for the present till further light is thrown on the subject by new discoveries.
A number of legends grew around the celebrated name of Mallikärjuna-panditārādhya, the details of many of which may not have any foundation in facts. But, as indicated above, the traditions representing him as a contemporary of Kakatiya Pratāparudra I appear to be genuine. Dr. P. Sreenivasachar identifies the Panditārādhya with the Saiva teacher Mallikarjuna mentioned in an inscription of Saka 1109 (1187 A.D.) from Kudavel-Sangamēśvaram about 10 miles from Alampur in the Mahbubnagar District of Andhra Pradesh. Two inscriptions from the Kurnool District of the same State, dated respectively in Saka 1154 (1232 A.D.) and 1157 (1235 A.D.), speak of a disciple of Mallikārjuna who may be no other than Mallikārjuna-paņditārādhya. The language of our inscription seems to suggest that the royal disciple Pratāparudra was still on the throne when his preceptor Mallikarjuna died. This may suggest that Mallikārjuna-paņļitārādhya died before 1195 A.D.
In spite of the mention of king Pratāparudra I of the Kakatiya dynasty of Warangal in the inscription under study, there is certainly no reason to believe that the Gayā region in South Bihar formed any part of his dominions. We know that South Bihar lay in the empire of the Palas of Bengal and Bihar from the eighth to the twelfth century and in the dominions of the Musalmans from the end of the twelfth century till the British conquest in the eighteenth century. Even in the absence of any reference in the present inscription to the ruler whose dominions comprised Gayā, king Pratāparudra mentioned in it cannot be regarded as having ruled over the Gayā region.
1 After the preparation of this paper, we have uxamined an inscription of about Saka 1121 (1199 A.D.) from Manthani (ancient Mantrakūta), which states that Mallikarjua's son Göpäla received a big plot of land at Mantrakūta from Kakatiya Rudradēva (i.e. Pratápar udra l) and that the township called Simhagiri-purs (the same as Simhädri-nagarl of tho Gaya inscription) was built by him on the said plot. This epigraph bottles the identity of Prataparudra of the Gaya inscription beyond doubt. Who Manthani insoription is being published in the pages of this journal.
* See a poem entitled 'Kakati Prolarājūdula prakarsa' in the Kakatiyasarnchika, od. by M. Rama Rao, p. 140.
.811, Vol. X, No. 395, p. 207, text lines 79-80.
C. Kabattyananchika, pp. 26, 81, 212. Op. cit., Part II, p. 71.
Rangachari's List, Nos. Kl. 14 and 19; A. R. Ep., 1926. 26, para. 62 (pp. 116-17).
* The death of Mallikarjuna-panditärädbyn has been assigned to 1169-70 A.D. (Kūkallycemichika, p. 212 on insuficient and doubtful grounds.