________________
350
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. VI.
The later Eastern Chalukya inscriptions, beginning with the Nandamapuņdi grant, report that Vimaladitya reigned 7 years, while the subjoined inscription is dated in his 8th year (1. 97). His accession took place in A.D. 1011, and that of his successor Rajaraja I. in A.D. 1022. Thus the duration of Vimalåditya's reign was 11 years, i.e. 4 years in excess of the period assigned to him. The explanation of this difference has perhaps to be sought for in the following facts. Two inscriptions on the Mahendragiri hill in the Gañjam district (Nos. 396 and 397 of 1896) record that the Chôļa king) Rajendra-Chola defeated Vimaladitya and set up a pillar of victory on the hill. The date when this event took place is not known. But as this fact is not recorded in the usual historical introduction of Rajendra-Chola's Tamil inscriptions, it may be presumed that it happened during the early part of his military career, when his father Rajaraja I. was still living. Again, there is an inscription in the Panchanadeśvara temple at Tiruvaiyaru near Tanjore (No. 215 of 1894), dated in the 20th year of the reign of the Chola king Rajaraja I., which records certain gifts to the temple by Vishnuvardhana-Vimaladitya, who is no doubt identical with the Eastern Chalukya king of the same name. There is thus reason to believe that Vimaladitya was at or near Tanjore in A.D. 1013-14. This fact, coupled with the defeat recorded in the Mahendragiri inscriptions, appears to show that Vimaladitya was taken prisoner to Tanjore by Rajendra-Chola.. While in the Chôļa country, he must have married Kundava, the daughter of the Chôļa king Rajaraja I. and younger sister of Rajendra-Cho!a I. After this marriage Vimaladitya may have been sent back to his dominions about A.D. 1015. Taking these inferences for granted, it may be assumed that, though the period counting from his accession in A.D. 1011 to the date of his death in A.D. 1022 is 11 years, the later Eastern Chalukya records recognise neither his original accession in A.D. 1011 nor the period of his stay in the Chôļa country, but reckon his reign from the time when he began to rule after his return from the Chôļa country, and thus give only 7 years as the duration of his reign.
The inscription attributes several surnames to Vimaladitya, viz. Birudanka-Bhima (11. 44 and 73 f.), Tribhuvanankusa (1. 47), Mummadi-Bhima (1. 51) and Bhûpa-Mahendra (1.74). Birudanka-Bhima ocours also in the Nandamapüņdi grant (1. 52). The surname MummadiBhima means the third Bhima' and is appropriate for Vimaladitya, as there were only two among his ancestors who bore the name Bhima. Before introducing the surname MummadiBhima (v. 19), the composer of the subjoined inscription refers to certain predecessors of the king who were looked upon as founders of the family, and states that Mummadi-Bhima was also one of those founders. Again, in two different places the king is spoken of as 'the resener of (his) family' (1. 57 f.) and as the only rescuer of (his) family' (1.75). If any significance is to be attached to these statements, they must imply that Vimaladitya took proper care to ensure the succession in his family and to strengthen its position. It is not impossible that there is a remote reference in these passages to Vimaladitya's alliance with the powerful Cholas by his marriage with the Chồls princess Kundavá, and perhaps also to the actual birth of an heir to the throne, via. Rajaraja I. The disastrous effects of the anarchy which prevailed in Vôngi immediately before the accession of Vimaladitya's predecessor could not have been altogether forgotten at the time when the subjoined grant was issued, and the king's attempts to render the position of his family firm and stable were apparently appreciated by the composer, if not by all the people in Vengi.
The donee was a minister of the king, called Vajra (vv. 24, 26, 28, 30) or, in Telugu, Vajjiya-Peggada (1. 85). He belonged to the Kauņdinya gôtra (v. 22), was a resident of the village of Karamachéļu (1. 84), and bore the surnames Budhavajraprakara (v. 31 and 1. 85). Amatyasikhamani and Saujanyaratnakara (v. 33 and 1. 85). The composer was Bhimanabhatta, son of Rachiya-Peddêri. This person must have been the father of the composer of
South-Ind. Inscr. Vol. III. p. 126.
