Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/236
208 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [July 5, 1872.
Mânya-Kheṭa-Pura." Now if Kâkala Deva Raja, belonging to a different branch of the same Yadava family, reigned concurrently with Amogha Varsha (the 6th of the lists), as Prof. Wilson supposes, they could not have had the same city for their capital. Besides, in the Karda inscription there is nothing that would justify the theory that the list of fourteen princes forms two branches of the Yadava family reigning concurrently with each other. The mention of the Chedi family of the Yâdavas shows that the Mânya Kheta princes intermarried with the former.
Then, since Prof. Wilson made these remarks, the date of Govinda Râja, the third of the above lists, has been discovered to be Śaka 730 (A. D. 808) from a copper-plate grant found in the Nâsik district.[1] Now if Kâkala Râja Deva was contemporary with Akâla Var sha, the seventh of the above lists, then the age of that Akâla Varsha must be, the same as that of Kâkala Râja, viz., Śaka 894, and the date of Govinda Râja being Śaka 730, leaves an interval of 164 years and three princes; and even allowing ten years, the portions of the reigns of Govinda Râja and Akâla Varsha, included, we have still an average of 48 years for the reign of each of the inter vening princes, which is far too much.
Lastly :—If two branches of the Yâdavas had reigned concurrently, the Khârepâṭaṇ inscrip tion would surely have contained some allusion to this, whereas the list on it is essentially the same as that contained in the Kardâ plate.
It seems clear therefore that the fourteen princes belonged to the same Yâdava family that reigned at Mânya-Kheta, and that Kâkala Râja, the fourteenth of the lists, and the grantor of the Kardâ copper-plate grant, did not live at the same time with Akâla Varsha the seventh.
Now there can be no doubt that the Kṛishṇa Deva of the present inscription corresponds with No. 12 of the Kardâ plate. Kṛishṇa Rája's title is Akâla Varsha, and at first sight, Amogha Varsha the 6th and Akâla Varsha the 7th of the lists would seem to claim identifica tion with the two princes of this inscription. The claim would also seem to be strengthened by the fact that both the Kardâ and the Khâre pâṭan plates agree with it in describing Amogha Varsha (the 6th of the lists) as the father of Akâla Varsha. But if we identify Akâla Varsha with the 7th of the lists, the difference between him and Govinda Râja, whose date is given as Śaka 730, would be 134 years, a period that is too long for five princes. The Amogha Varsha of this inscription is identical with No. 11 and Kṛishṇa Raja with No. 12 of the Karda plate.
The date of Kṛishṇa Râja Deva being then Śaka 867, and that of Kâkala Raja, Śaka 894, there is only a difference of 27 years, which is not too long for three princes.
The objections to this identification are — 1st, that the Kardâ plate makes Kṛishṇa Râja (the twelfth) not the son, but a brother, of his pre decessor Amogha Varsha, whereas this in scription describes him as his son; and 2ndly, that the Khârepâtan plate does not mention Kṛishṇa Râja as Amogha Varsha's successor, but gives two princes, Govinda Râja and Baddiga, as in tervening between them.
The first objection can only be met by sup posing that the Kardà plate is not quite accurate in giving Kṛishṇa Deva as the brother of Amogha Varsha. This is not very extraordi nary, seeing that the genealogies of kings have often-times been at the mercy of the memory of Sanskrit writers.
As for the discrepancy between this inscription and the Khârepâtan plate, it is possible that Baddiga, the predecessor, according to the latter, of Kṛishṇa Râja, might have borne the title of Amogha Varsha. For Baddiga is only the name of the king, not his title. And as No. 11 in the Karda plate is put down as Amogha Varsha, i.e., by the title, not by the name of the King, it is possible that No. 11 of the Karda plate was the same as No. 11 of the Khârepâtan one.[2]
The testimony of the Karda plate on the score of some Amogha Varsha being the predecessor of Kṛishṇa Deva is more trustworthy than the discredit thrown on that fact by the list of the Khârepâtan plate, first because the latter list was recorded in Śaka 930 (A.D. 1008), or about 40 years after the reign of Kâkala Raja, and sixty- six years after the date of the present inscription; and secondly, because it occurs in a document relating to a dynasty subordinate to the Châlukyas, who were antagonistic to, and had subverted the authority of the Mânyakheta princes.
The Kṛishṇa Râja Deva of this inscription