________________
No. 25.]
PANCHADHARALA PILLAR INSCRIPTION.
157
the Emperor of Delhi. Of the war Ferishta gives the following account in his History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India 1 :
"In the year 754 (i.e. 1353 A.D.) the King (Feroze Tughlak, the successor of the well-known Mohamed Tughlak) having hunted at Kallanore, caused a palace to be built on the banks of the Soorsutty. In the month of Shuwal, of the same year, he appointed Khan Jehan to the charge of Dehly, and himself marched towards Luknowty, to subdue Hajy Elias. This chief had assumed royal honours, and the title of Sumg-ood-Deen, and had also occupied with his troops the whole of Bengal and Behar, as far as Benares. On the King's arrival in the peighbourhood of Gorukpoor, the zemindars of that place made the usual presents, and were admitted to pay their respects. The King then penetrated as far as Bundwa, one of the stations of Hajy Elias; and the latter retreated to Yekdulla, whither the King pursued him, and arrived there on the 7th of Rubbee-ool. Awul. An action ensued on the same day; but Hajy Elias having entrenched his position very strongly reduced the King to the necessity of surrounding him. The blockade continued for twenty days, when, on the 5th of Rubbee-ool-Akhir, Feroze, intending to change his ground, and to encamp on the banks of the Ganges, went out to reconnoitre. The enemy, imagining that he meditated & retreat, left their works, and drew up in order of battle. On perceiving it was the King's intention to attack them, however, they again retreated, but with such precipitation and confusion, that 44 elephants and many standards fell into the King's hand. The rainy season soon after came on with great violence; peace was concluded ; and the King returned to Delhy, without effecting his effects."
The last remark leaves no doubt that Firoz Tughlaq did not succeed in subduing Iliyās Khwāja, which would be quite in harmony with the statement of the present inscription, that the Sultan of Panduva gained a victory over the Emperor of Delhi. From the inscription we may further gather that the Sultā nof Panduva W&s aided by the king of Orissa, and from the account that Chöda II gave the Sri of Victory together with twenty-two elephants to the king of Utkala ' it becomes likely that he was & Vassal of the ruler of Orissa, or a general in his army.
According to verse 10, the Bhimba-linga in Daksh&rāma, the modern Dracharam in the Godavari district, four miles from Ramachandrapuram, was the idol of king Choda II. He was married to Attemāmba (v. 11).
The son of Choda II was Bhima (v. 11), of whom nothing is recorded except that he was married to Lakkambă (v. 12).
His son was Choda III (v. 12). In verse 16 he is said to have protected the princes of the great Shatköpa. The name of Mahā-Shatkoņa seems to be identical with Kõna-sima and Kõņa. mandala, the local designation of the Godāvari Delta. In the Nadupūru grant of Anna-Vēme dated in Saka-Samvat 1296, we find the name Kõnasthala which, according to the late Prof. Hultzsch, is the same as Kõna-mandala and Kõna-sima."
From the Pithāpuram pillar inscription of Mallidēva and Manma-Satya IIo we know of a certain dynasty that ruled over the Köna-mandala. The last of the princes here mentioned is Manma-Satye II, who ruled in Saka-Samvat 1117. Since the dynasty of our inscription has no connection with that older dynasty, it seems that in the 13th century a change of dynasties
- Translated by John Briggs, Vol. I, p. 448/.
* Bundwa undoubtedly is the Panduva of our ingcription. Pandua is situated some twenty miles from Gaur.
With regard to the name of Dakshärime, see Hultzsch's remark above, Vol. IV, No. 37, note 3, "See obove, Vol. III, p. 287. See above, Yol. III, p. 287, and Vol. IV, p. 84; also Vol. VII, p. 75. Bee above, VoL IV, p. 83.
