Epigraphia Indica Vol 07

Author(s): E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 44

No. 6.7
CAMBAY PLATES OF GOVINDA IV.
Two other points of some importance deserve to be noticed. The first is with regard to the date of Dharmapala, who has been placed conjecturally by Cunningham and Prof. Kielhorn in the earlier part, or about the middle, of the 9th century. But we have seen that Dharmapala was a contemporary of the Rashtrakuţa prince Indra III., for whom the Rashtrakuța records furnish the dates 915 and 917 A.D. We thus have positive evidence that Dharmapala lived in the earlier part of the 10th century, i.e. at least half a century later than he has hitherto been placed. Next, the Mungir plates of Dêvapaladêva tell us that Dharmapala married Rannadevi, daughter of the Rashtrakûța prince Sri-Paravala. Prof. Kielhorn, who re-edited the inscription, corrects Sri-Paravala into śrl-Vallabha. If this correction is accepted, the Râshţrakůţa king, who was the father-in-law of Dharmapala, was either Krishna II. or Indra III. himself. For Jagattunga, father of the latter and son of the former, died without coming to the throne. Further, it appears unlikely that Dharmapala, if he had been the son-in-law of Indra III., would have carried on hostilities with him. On the whole, therefore, it seems more probable that Krishna II. was the father-in-law of Dharmapala.
So much for the historical conclusions to be drawn from verse 19 of our grant. From verse 20 we gather that Indra III. married Vijamba of the Haihaya, i.e. Chêdi, dynasty. She is therein said to be the daughter of Ammaņadeva, who himself was the son of Arjuna and grandson of Kókkalla. From Indra III. and Vijámbå sprang the prince Govinda (IV.)," the beauty of whose form excelled that of the god of love" (v. 21). The first three lines of verse 22 look as if the composer of the inscription were giving of his own accord quite an uncalled-for defence to establish the spotless character of his patron Govinda IV. This is enough to lead one to suspect that certain accusations, which the composer tries to confute, were in his time actually whispered against Govinda IV. The second and third lines of this verse, as will be seen from the translation, defend him against the attack of sensuality and incest. This indicates that Govinda IV. was popularly believed to have led a dissolate life and even looked upon as inoestuous. And, that he had given himself up to sensual pleasures, is mentioned in the Khårêpatan grant and in the Debli and Karhâd charters. The former calls him "an abode of the sentiment of love, surrounded by crowds of lovely women." The two latter represent him as "the source of the sportive pleasures of love" and as “one whose intelligence was entangled in the noones which were the eyes of women." The Déoli and Karhad charters, moreover, tell us that, in consequence of his sensual courses, he undermined his health and bedimmed his natural lastre. Another sense is also here intended, vis. that Govinda IV. incurred the displeasure of his subjects, rendered the constituents of the political body loose, and thus met with destruction. To this may be added the further statement of the aforesaid grants that, after Gôvinda IV. had thus come to ruin, the feudatory chieftains besought his uncle Amoghavarsha to ascend the throne and thereby maintain the Ratta, i.e. Rashtrakața, sovereignty, and that accordingly he acceded to their request. Mr. K. B. Pathak has drawn my attention to a passage in the Vikramärjunavijaya by the Kanarese poet Pampa, which has an important bearing
proved that the Indra, who is associated with Chakréyadhs in the Bhagalpur charter, was & Rashtrakůta prince, holding away in the Dekkan, and cannot, therefore, be identified with Indrayudha, who was ruling in the north, and that this Rashtrakata king Indrs can neither be the elder brother of, nor belong to the same family with, Chakrayudha, who was king of Kanauj.
See above, Vol. IV. p. 246, Ind. Ant. Vol. XXI. p. 254; Arol. Sur. Rep. Vol. XV. p. 150, where Cunningham fixes the accession of Dharmapåla in A.D. 83). Now that we know that Dharmapala was a contemporary of the Rashtrakața prince Indrs 111., the mention of the week-day and the regnal year in his Mahabodhi inscription can be utilised to determine much more approximately the date of Dharmapala's accession, as was first suggested by Cunningham.
• Ind. Ant. Vol. XXI. p. 254, and note 10 on p. 99.
Above, Vol. III. p. 298, text line 10. • Above, Vol. IV. p. 288 f., verse 20; Vol. V. p. 194, verse 18. . Above, Vol. IV. p 294, verse 21 ; Vol. V. p. 194, verse 19,