We know that Narasiṃha Pallava destroyed Vātāpi, the capital of early Cālukyas and assassinated Pulakeśi II, one of the great emperor of that century which is ascertained by his inscription at Vātāpi during 642 CE. After the assassination of Pulakeśi II, his sons āditya, Candrāditya and Vikramāditya I were in a difficult position. Though another brother Raṇarāgavarmā is also referred in the Honnūr plates of Vikramāditya, he didn’t have much to do with the kingdom. They left their capital and they were in another place. After Pulakeśi II, his eldest son Āditya varmā took the charge. He ruled for only three years from the debacle. His rule extended till 645 CE. Then his son Abhinavāditya ruled for one year i.e till 646 CE. Then brother of Āditya varmā, Candrāditya ruled for four years till 649 CE. Then after his death, his queen Vijayā Bhaṭṭārikā ruled for five years on behalf of her minor son.
These were traced from the charters gave by the consequent rulers. Particularly two copper plate inscriptions of Vijayā Bhaṭṭārikā were found and the inscriptions reveal the rule of this queen.
The Nērūr copper plates were issued by the queen during her fifth regnal year. It was issued on the 2nd day after the full moon day of the āśvayuja month. It gives the genealogy of the Cālukya upto Pulakeśi II and mentions Candrāditya, husband of the queen. The object of the grant is to record that in the 5th of her reign, Vijayabhaṭṭārikā gifted some fields to at the village of Narakāgrahāra to āryasvāmi Dīkṣita.
The next copper plate inscription is from Kochre. It refers the 12th day of the bright fortnight of the month Vaiśākha. The record mentions a command of queen Vijayamahādevī recording some donation after fasting on the above tithi.
Some scholars opined that Vijaya bhaṭṭārikā didn’t ruled separately and the grants were given during her husband’s rule. But the question is if these were granted during her husband’s rule, then how the expression “Sva-rājya-Pañcama-saṃvatsare” – in the fifth year of my rule – could be relevant? Hence it can be concluded that Vijaya Bhaṭṭārikā ruled separately till the occupation of Vikramāditya I who reestablished the past glory of the dynasty.
The details about her minor son is not available. Even she is not remembered by the successors in their grants. Then also, the above conclusion could be correct which is ascertained by the above plates.
We have seen so many queens in the Indian history like Rudramadevī, Jhānsi Rāni etc. But this unsung queen is there to be remembered.