________________
No. 12) TWO SINDA INSCRIPTIONS FROM BENACHAMATTI, SAKA 1088 & 1109. 113
though it was well established by then, had begun to recognise it by A. D. 1167, as is evident from the preamble to the grant portion of inscription A. It appears that he was holding the reins of government in conjunction with his sons Achugi and Permādi in A. D. 1163 when the Pattadakal inscription was engraved. It is not known under what circumstances the Sinda chiefdom passed to the sons of Siriyādēvi after the death of Chāvunda II.
Chāvunda's rule must have ended in A. D. 1169-70, for we find his sons Vira-Bijjana and Vira-Vikrama ruling over Kisukādu-70, Bāgadage-70, and Keļavadi-300 in A. D. 1170 as recorded in the Ajhole inscription dated in Virödhin, corresponding to the 94th year of the Chalukya Vikrama era, whereas an epigraph from Hirēmaņņür bearing the date Saka 1091 (A.D. 1169) introduces Chāvunda as a donor of some gift. Further the Harti inscription of Vira-Bijjana dated in the cyclic year Vijaya falling in his 7th year fixes the date of his accession sometime in Virõdhin. Vira-Bijjana and Vira-Vikrama appear to have ruled conjointly as is shown by the preamble to inscription B which states that both the princes were ruling together from their capital at Erambarage. This is corroborated by other inscriptions also. There are, however, a few epigraphs which were issued by the two brothers independently of each other. But this does not vitiate the above conclusion inasmuch as joint rulers could make donations separately as well. There are reasons to hold that the two princes were very young when they were invested with power. Two inscriptions at Nidgundi with dates in Saka 1094 (A. D. 1172) and Saka 1096 (A. D. 1174) style them as kumāras and introduce patļamahādēvi Sirigādevi as making some gifts in conjunction with her two children. This seems to indicate that their mother Siriyādēvi was actually governing the Sinda territory as regent during their minority.? That they were children then, as said above, is rendered quite probable by a record of A. D. 1220 in which year Vikramaditya was still holding the Sinda dominions under the Yadava Simganadēva, after a rule of not less than fifty years.
It is significant to note that inscription B does not mention any overlord but proceeds to describe the two brothers straightaway as if they were independent rulers. After the Kalachurya usurpation which lasted for twenty years, the Sindas retransferred their allegiance to the Chāļukyas under Sömēsvara IV, who revived his ancestral sovereignty in A. D. 1183. Sometime after this date, the Chāļukya territory appears to have again become a prey to the constant attacks of the Yadavas of Dēvagiri on the north and the Hoysalas of Dvārasamudra on the south. During this period of turmoil, the Sinda princes must have declared independence. This is indicated by the expression “Chakravarti-padavi-patiy=innritan= enal-esevan=urvvi-khyäta-yasan Vira-Vikramāvanipālam " in inscription B which means that the powerful Vikrama was then the fit person to bear the title of Chakravartin. But this independence did not continue long, for we find from the Amạigere and Gadag inscriptions of Yadava Bhillamadēva, dated respectively in A. D. 1189 and 1191, that the Yādava king held the country south of the Malaprabhā and Krishņā as well as the northern provinces, thus precluding the possibility of the Sindas remaining free and unassailed. Since Jaitugi counts his reign from the latter date, Bhillama must have died in that year probably in an encounter with Vira-Ballāla. This is proved by the existence of Vira-Baltāļa's record at Gadag
1 J. B. B. R. A. 8., Vol. XI, pp. 274. It was re-edited more correctly in Ind. Ant., Vol. LX, p. 96. * No. 4 of tho Bombay Karnatak collection for 1927-28. * No. 57 of 1926-27 of the same collection. Ibid, No. 221 of 1926-27. Ron and Harti inscriptions mentioned above. • Nos. 208 and 206 of 1920-27 of the Bombay Kamatak collection. *Ibid., No. 85 of 1927-28.
Dyn. Kan. Dist., p. 504.
