________________
118 .. EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
IVOL. XXXIV augmented by his elder brother (i.o., Vikramaditya I), and this suggests that he was appointed viceroy of the Násik region by Vikramaditya I. But the Nasik plates do not represent him clearly as a feudatory of the Chālukya emperor.
While there is only one charter issued by Jayasimhavarman as indicated above, two grants of his son Yuvarāja Sryāáraya Silāditya were so far known to us. These are the Nausāri plates of the Kalachuri year 421=669-70 A.D. (actualy Mágha-sudi 13 of 670 A.D.) and the Surat plates of the year 443-691-92 A.D. (actually Srāvana-sudi 15 of 691 A.D.). The earlier of the two grants, like the charter under study, is known to have been issued from Navasärikä (Nausāri). Our inscription is thus the third and the earliest of Sryasraya Siladitya's inscriptions so far known. His title Yuvarāja (meaning 'an heir-apparent') and the fact that the seal of his Surat plates bears the name of his father have led some scholars to believe that Sryasraya Silāditya was ruling on behalf of his father who was himself a viceroy of the Chalukyas of Bädāmi. But the issue of copper-plate grants by both the father and the son appears to suggest that they were ruling over different tracts as semi-independent subordinates of the Chalukya emperors of Bădāmi. It has to be noted that Silāditya's charters do not indicate in any way that he was a subordinate of his father or of the Chālukya emperor of Bādāmi, but, on the other hand, show that his political status was similar to that of his father. If he was really ruling on his father's behalf over a portion of the latter's chiefdom, he could not have issued charters of his own without indicating his subordinate status in any way. Indeed, in such a case, he could only issue a grant with his father's permission. We can understand a powerful viceroy issuing charters in his own name with the connivance of his weak or distant overlord. But it is difficult to believe that a governor under the viceroy, even if he was his own son, was empowered to issue grants like an independent ruler. In this connection, attention may be drawn to the fact that the Manor plates of Jayasraya Mangalarāja, who was another son of Dharābraya Jayasimhavarman and was ruling over the Thana region, were issued in Saka 613 691-92 A.D. (actually on Vaisakha-sudi 15 of 691 A.D.) stated to have been corresponding to the twenty first regnal year of Mangalarāja. Thus Mangalarāja's rule as a viceroy began as early as 669-70 A.D. while his brother Sryasraya Silāditya is now known to have been ruling from the year 668-69 A.D. down at least to 691-92 A.D. as already indicated above. Both the brothers were thus ruling semi-independently at the same time side by side with their father. Mangalarāja's reference to the twentyfirst year of his own rule no doubt points to his semi-independent status.
It has been suggested that the regnal year 21 mentioned in the Manor plates refer to the reign of Dharāfraya Jayasimhavarman and not of Margalarāja who is believed to have been ruling on his father's behalf and, on this basis, it has been concluded that Jayasimhavarman ruled from 669-70 A.D. (Kalachuri year 421) at least to 691-92 A.D. (Kalachuri year 443) which are, as we have seen, the dates of the Nausāri and Surat plates of his son Bryāśraya Silāditya. This is, however, clearly against the language of the Manor plates. Moreover, the present record shows that Sryasraya Sīlāditya began to rule at least one year earlier and this fact disproves the suggestion that the Nausāri plates of the Kalachuri year 421 were issued by Sryasraya Silāditya shortly after Gujarat came into the possession of Dharisraya Jayasimhavarman, i.e. in the first year of his rule.? The date CIJ, Vol. IV, p. 125, text line 9.
Ibid., pp. 123 ff. * Ibid., pp. 132 ff.
Ibid., p. lxiii. Above Vol. XXVIII, pp. 17 ff.
• Ibid., p. 618. Mirasbi agrees with the suggestion but regards the Kalachuri years 421 and 448 as equivalent to 670-71 and 693-94 A.D. rospectively (CII, Vol. IV, p. lix, note 1). Jayasraya Mangalarája had a fairly long rule since he is also known to have issued tho Balser Plates of Saka 653 (731-32 A.D.). Soo JBBRAS, Vol. XVI, p. 5; Ind. Ant., Vol. XIII, p. 75.
It is really strange that Mirashi (loo. cit.) regards 670-71 A. D. as later than 671-72 A. D. which he quotes 88 671 A, D., the reason being obvious
