Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. I, Part I: History of Gujarat c10.s2: The Chaulukyas or Solankis

Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. I, Part I: History of Gujarát c10.s2

Language
English

Contents

The Chaulukyas or Solankis

c10.s2.1

(A.D. 961-1242)

c10.s2.2

The next rulers are the Chaulukyas, a dynasty whose conversion to Jainism has secured them many chroniclers. The earliest writer on the subject is Hemachandra (A.D. 1089-1173), in his *Dvyāśraya*, who has given a fairly full and correct account of the reign of Siddharāja (A.D. 1143). The work was continued by Hemachandra about A.D. 1160, and finished later on by another Jain monk named Abhayatilaka. The last chapter which is in Prākrit describes the Kingnama. This work is a grammar rather than a chronicle, but with references to dates, it is a good collection of facts and descriptions. For chronology the best guide is the *Vichāraśreṇi* which seems to have taken pains to make the chief authority on dates. This work was written by Merutunga about A.D. 1304, and is known as the *Prabandhachintāmaṇi*.

c10.s2.3

According to the *Vichāraśreṇi* after the death of the king (Vaisākha Suddha 1017), began the reign of Mūlarāja the son of the daughter of the last Chāvaḍa ruler. The name, Chaulukya, is a Sanskritised form, through an earlier form Chulukya, of the old word Chalkya, Chālikya, Chinkya, Chālinkya of the Deccan dynasty (A.D. 552-573), made to harmonise with the Paurāṇik stories that the founder of the dynasty sprang from the *chuluka* of Brahmā. The form Chālukya seems to have been confined to poets and writers. It was used by the great Deccan king Pulakesin (A.D.) and by the Pāṭanvāḍa chroniclers. In Gujarat, the popular form of the word seems to have been Solanki, a possible variant of Chālukya, a name till lately used by Rajput land-owners. The similarity of names seems to show the Deccan and Gujarat dynasties to be branches of one stock. No materials are available to prove the original seat of the family or to show why and when they came to Gujarat. The balance of probability is that the Solankis and Mūlarāja’s ancestors came from the north.

c10.s2.4

The *Sukṛitasaṅkīrtana* says that the last Chāvaḍa king was succeeded by his sister’s son Mūlarāja. Of the origin of Mūlarāja’s father no details are given. The *Dvyāśraya* says that Mūlarāja was the sister’s son of Sāmantasiṃha. The *Vichāraśreṇi* says: In A.D. 960 of the family of Bhinmāla (who were of the lunar race) three brothers Rāji, Bīja, and Daṇḍaka, who arrived in the city on their way back from a pilgrimage to Somnātha in the guise of Kārpaṭika or Kāpḍi beggars. The three brothers attended the court.

c10.s2.5

¹ Ind. Ant. IV. 71-72 and VI. 180.

c10.s2.6

² Ind. Ant. VI. 180. The suggestion may be offered that the name is mentioned as the clan of Mūlarāja’s ancestors in the *Dvyāśraya*.

c10.s2.7

³ Compare Burgess’ Kathiawar and Kutch, 178.

c10.s2.8

heir to the king Sāmantasimha. An objection taken by Rāji to these chivalry movements pleased Sāmantasimha, who, taking the son of some noble family, gave him his sister Līlādevī, who was then left pregnant and the child, which was taken from the dead mother's womb was called Mūlarāja, because the operation was performed when the Mūla constellation was in power. He grew up an able and popular prince and helped to extend the kingdom of his maternal uncle. In a fit of intoxication Sāmantasimha allowed Mūlarāja to be placed on the throne. He afterwards cancelled this act, but Mūlarāja contended that a king once installed could not be degraded. He collected troops, defeated and slew his uncle and secured the throne in A.D. 942 (S. 998). The main facts of this story, that his father was one Rāji of the Cālukya family, that his mother was a Cāvaḍā princess, and that he came to the Cāvaḍā throne through the maternal uncle, appear to be true. That Mūlarāja's father was Rāji is proved by Dr. Bühler's copper-plates. Merutuṅga's details that Rāji came in disguise to satisfy the fancy of Sāmantasimha, and received his sister in marriage, are things in the style common in the bardic praises of kings. Dr. Bühler's copper-plate further disproves the story that he was the son of the illustrious Rāji, the great king of Kanyakubja, a title which would not be given to a wanderer. It appears to have been of almost equal rank with the Cālukyas. The Rāsāmālā calls Rāji fifth in descent from Bhūvaḍa, the others being Karṇāditya, Candrāditya, Somāditya, and Kṣemāditya, but the Rāsāmālā list is on the face of it wrong, as it is used instead of seven or eight kings to fill the space of over two centuries between Vayasekhara and Mūlarāja.

c10.s2.9

The chroniclers begin the history of Aṇahilavāḍa with Mūlarāja, and with him starts the glory of the dynasty. After taking the reins of the kingdom Mūlarāja spread his power in all directions, overcoming Kaccha-deśa and Kacch on the west, and fighting Bāruppa of the Lāṭa deśa, Gujarāt on the south, and Vigraharāja king of Sapādalakṣa on the north. The Ajmir kings were called Sapādalakṣas. Why they were so called is not known. This much is certain that Sapādalakṣa is the Sanskrit form of the modern Sewālik. It would seem that the Cāuhāns, whom the Gujarāt Jain chroniclers call Sapādalakṣas, came to Gujarāt from the Sewālik hills. After the fall of the Sewālik hills the capital was at Ajmir, which is usually said to have been founded by the Cāuhān king Ajayapāla (A.D. 1174-1177). This is not accepted by the Cāuhāns. The name Ajmir appears to be connected with the Mehrs who were in power in these parts between the seventh and eighth centuries. The Hammīramahākāvya begins the history of the Cāuhāns with Vāsudeva (A.D. 780) and states that Vāsudeva's son Sāmantarāya established the hill fort of Ajmir. About this time the Cāuhāns seem to have made settlements in the Ajmir country and harassed Gujarāt. Vigraharāja the tenth in succession from Vasantavilas describes his killing Râja-kula Dhavala, weakening the Gurjjara country. The author of the Prabandha Chintamani gives the following details. The Sapadalaksha king, the enemy of Mularaja, being informed that Mularaja was at the same time attacked by Bârappa, a general of king Tailapa of Telingana, unable to see both enemies, Mularaja, by the advice of his minister Kanthaditya, apparently Kanthaditya in Cutch, 21, at that time of the Navaratra or Nine-Night festival, at that time of the rains when the expected the Sapadalaksha king would leave his camp to a junction to worship the goddess Sakambhari when he was left alone. At the close of the rains the Sapadalaksha king had his camp near a place called Sakanambhari and bringing the goddess there held the Nine-Night festival. This came to Mularaja's ears. He sent for his commander of nobles and by them prepared. He with them his plans and called a merchant, slipped into the camp of the Sapadalaksha king. Mularaja then mounted, leaving his elephant with his attendant but the driver cut at the elephant came suddenly at the camp. He dismounted and holding a sword in his hand, at the doorkeeper 'What is you doing doing.' Go and tell your master that Mularaja waits at his abode. Then the attendant was run away to give the message. Mularaja pushed him on one side and himself went into the presence. The doorkeeper called 'Here comes Mularaja.' Before he could be stopped Mularaja was thus saying and took his seat on the throne. The Sapadalaksha king in astonishment asked 'Are you Mularaja?' Mularaja answered 'I would expect this as brave king who would meet me face to face in battle. While I am thinking no such brave enemy exists you have arrived. I ask you whether you mean to fight with me. But as I asked you what you are doing, I am telling, at almost time, Bârappa the general of King Tailapa of Telingana has arrived to attack me. While I am punishing that you should keep quiet and not give me a side blow.' The Ajmer king said 'Enough, you are a king, you have come here alone like a bold soldier, I am caring for your safety. I will let you alone for this.' Mularaja said 'Say not so.' He refused the Râja's invitation to drink and saying sword to hand mounted his elephant and with his nobles and the army of Bârappa, Bârappa was killed and eighteen of his elephants and 10,000 of his horses fell into Mularaja's hands. While returning with the spoil Mularaja received news that the Sapadalaksha king had died.

c10.s2.10

¹ The death of Ajmer king is mentioned in Vasantavilas, the Prabandha Chintamani, and the revised edition of the Har-gaurivivaha by Prof. Peterson, in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, 116ff. It is one of the best different king was there, and the story is told in the first part of the same century as early. The Sapadalaksha king is the same as the king of the Sapadalaksha country, especially in the Sapadalaksha and the Karnat, Chahamana dynasty, Prithviraja Prabandha, etc.

c10.s2.11

² It appears from the Prabandha Chintamani, as also by Tod, Ant. XII, 196, and from the Somnath inscription that the enemy Bârappa was the son of a dynasty who was the general of the Chalukya king of the Dakhan, Tailapa, a noted king of the Chalukya dynasty, who ruled the country from the Krishna or the river of the south. The Sapadalaksha king is the same as the Chahamana king of Sakambhari.

c10.s2.12

³ The date of the death of Mularaja is A.D. 996, and he was succeeded by his son Chamundaraja.

c10.s2.13

This story of the author of the Prabandhachintāmaṇi differs from that given by the author of the Hammīrakāvya who describes Mūlarāja as defeated and slain. The truth seems to be that the Ajmīr king defeated Mūlarāja and on Mūlarāja's submission did not press his advantage. In these circumstances Mūlarāja's victory over Bārappa seems improbable. The Dvyāśraya devotes seventy-five verses (27-101) of its sixth chapter to the contest between Bārappa and Mūlarāja. The details may be thus summarised. Once when Mūlarāja received presents from various Indian kings Dvārappa king of Lāṭadeśa sent an ill-omened elephant. The marks being examined by royal officers and by prince Chāmuṇḍa they decided the elephant would bring destruction on the king who kept him. The elephant was sent back in disgrace and Mūlarāja and his son started with an army to attack Lāṭadeśa and avenge the insult. In his march Mūlarāja first came to the Svabhravatī or Sābarmatī which formed the boundary of his kingdom frightening the people. From the Sābarmatī he advanced to the ancient Purī where also the people became confused. The Lāṭa king prepared for fight, and was slain by Chāmuṇḍa in single combat. Mūlarāja advanced to Broach where Bārappa who was assisted by the island kings opposed him. Chāmuṇḍa overcame them and slew Bārappa. After this success Mūlarāja and Chāmuṇḍa returned to Aṇahilapura.

c10.s2.14

The Dvyāśraya styles Bārappa king of Lāṭadeśa; the Prabandhachintāmaṇi calls him a general of Tailapa king of Telingana; the Sukṛitasankīrtana a general of the Kanyakubja king; and the Kīrtikaumudī a general of the Lord of Lāṭa.

c10.s2.15

Other evidence proves that at the time of Mūlarāja a Chaulukya king named Bārappa did reign in Lāṭadeśa. The Surat grant of Trilochanapāla grandson of Bārappa is dated A.D. 1018 (Saka 940). This, taking twenty years to a king, brings Bārappa's date to A.D. 978 (Saka 900), a year which falls in the reign of Mūlarāja (A.D. 941-996; S. 998-1053). The statement in the Prabandhachintāmaṇi that Bārappa was a general of Tailapa seems correct. The southern form of the name Bārappa supports the statement. And as Tailapa overthrew the Rāshṭrakūṭas in A.D. 973 (Saka 894) he might well place a general in military charge of Lāṭa, and allow him practical independence. This would explain why the Dvyāśraya calls Bārappa king of Lāṭadeśa and why the Kīrtikaumudī calls him general of the Lord of Lāṭa.

c10.s2.16

One of Mūlarāja's earliest wars was with Graharipu the Abhīra or Chuḍāsama ruler of Soraṭh. According to Mūlarāja's bards, the cause

c10.s2.17

¹ Apparently a Sanskrit form of Bārappa.

c10.s2.18

² Broach according to the commentator.

c10.s2.19

³ The Sukṛitasankīrtana mentions this defeat of Bārappa who is said to be a general of the Kanyakubja or Kanoj king. The Prabandhachintāmaṇi (Mūlarāja-prabandha) also mentions the invasion and slaughter of Bārappa; but there is no reference to this in the grant of Bārappa's descendant Trilochanapāla (Ind. Ant. XII. 196).

c10.s2.20

⁴ Canto II. Verse 3.

c10.s2.21

⁵ As Mr. Forbes rightly observed Graharipu the Planet-seizer is a made-up title based on the resemblance of the planet-seizer's name Rāhu to Ko the title of the Chuḍāsamas of Junagadh. The personal name of the chief is not given and the list of the Junagadh Chuḍāsamas is too incomplete to allow of identification.

c10.s2.22

THE CHALUKYAS, A.D. 961-1242, Mularája, A.D. 961-996.

c10.s2.23

of war was Graharipu's oppression of pilgrims to Prabhás. Graharipu's capital was Vámanasthali, the modern Vanthali near the city of Junágadh, and the fort of Durgapalli which Graharipu is said to have established must be Junágadh itself, which was then called Girinár. Graharipu is described as a cow-eating Mlechchha. He is said to have had much influence over the tribes of Kacch and to have been helped by Turushka soldiers. Múlarája reached the Jambamáli river, he was met by the king and his army. With Graharipu was Lákhá of Kacch, a chief who was probably a Sumrá, Mewás Bhílas, and the sons of Graharipu. A Nílú who had been summoned from near the Sindhu, wrote a song in the Yavana language.¹ With Múlarája were the kings of Siláprastha,² of Márwár, of Kási, of Arbuda, the son of Sámanta, and Bhínmál. Múlarája had also his own court brother, Jángala, and his friend king Revátimitra, and Bhíls. It is mentioned that in this expedition Múlarája received no help from the sons of his paternal uncles Bija and Dandaka. The king ended in Múlarája being made prisoner by Múlarája, and in Lákhá being slain with a spear. After the victory Múlarája went to Prabhás, worshipped the Linga, and returned to Anahilaváda with his army and 108 elephants.

c10.s2.24

¹ The mention of her name and of the language in which she wrote suggests something remarkable in the race and position of queen Nílú.

c10.s2.25

² Perhaps Sitbá in Jhalávád.

c10.s2.26

According to the author of the Prabandhachintámani, Lákhá met his death in a different contest with Múlarája. Lákhá who is described as the son of Phuladá and Kámalatá daughter of Kirttirája a Távaka king, is said to have been invincible because he was under the protection of king Yas'ovarman of Málwa. He defeated Múlarája's army on several times. In a twelfth encounter Múlarája, aided by a trick, slew him in single combat, and trod on his dying head. Enraged at this insult to her dead son Lákhá's mother called down on Múlarája and his descendants the curse of the spider poison.³

c10.s2.27

³ The same account appears in the Kumárapálacharita.

c10.s2.28

Mr. Forbes, apparently from bardic sources, states that on the death Ráji the father of Múlarája went to the capital of Vijayapála of Dwárká. On his return he visited the court of Lákhá Phuláni and espoused Lákhá's sister Ráyáji by whom he had a son named Rája. This marriage proved the ruin of Ráji. In a dispute about precedence Lákhá slew Ráji and many of his Rájputs, his wife Ráyáji becoming a Satí. Bija, the uncle of Múlarája, then sought to avenge his father's death and Múlarája joined him in the war against Lákhá because Lákhá harboured Rákháet, who had fled from his court as a rival to Múlarája.

c10.s2.29

According to the Dvyásraya, either from the horror of his sin or from repentance for his own rough acts after the glorious victory over Bárappa Múlarája installed him as ruler and devoted himself to religion and charity. According to the Prabandhachintámani he built in Anahilaváda a Jain temple named Múlavásaka, But at the same symbol on his copperplate shows that Mūlarāja was a devoted Śaivite, it is possible that this temple was built by some Jain guild or community and named after the reigning chief.¹ Mūlarāja built a Mahā-deva temple called Mūlasvāmi in Aṇahilavāḍa, and, in honour of his mother, he built the temple of Mūlesvara at Maṇḍali-nagara where he went at the bidding of the god.² He also built at Aṇahilavāḍa a temple of Mahādeva called Tripuruṣaprasāda on a site to which the tradition tells that seeing Mūlarāja daily visiting the temple of Mūlasvāmi at Maṇḍali, Somanātha Mahādeva being greatly pleased, promised to bring the ocean to Aṇahilavāḍa. Somanātha also said that the ocean accompanying the god certain ponds became brackish. In honour of these salt pools Mūlarāja built the Tripuruṣa-prasāda, looking for some one to place in charge of this temple, Mūlarāja heard of an ascetic named Kanthadi at Siddhapura on the banks of the Sarasvatī who used to fast every other day and on the intervening day lived on five morsels of food. Mūlarāja offered this sage the charge of the temple. The sage declined saying 'Authority is a steep path to hell.' Eventually Vayajalladeva a disciple of the sage undertook the management on certain conditions. Mūla-rāja passed most of his days at the holy shrine of Siddhapura, the river Sarasvatī, on the Sarasvatī about fifteen miles north-east of Aṇahilavāḍa. At Sidhpur Mūlarāja made many grants to Brāhmans. Several branches of Gujarāt Brāhmans, Audīchyas Srīgauḍas and others, trace their origin in Gujarāt to an invitation from Mūlarāja from Sidhpur and the local Purāṇas and Māhātmyas confirm the story. The word Audīchya means Northerner Mūlarāja may have invited Brāhmans from some such holy place as Kurukshetra which the Audīchyas claim as their home. From Kānyakubja in the Madhyadesa or from the Ganges and the Yamunā another equally holy place the Brāhmans may have been invited. The Srī Gauḍas appear to have come from Bengal and Tirhut Gauḍa and Tirhut Brāhmans are noted for their knowledge as a branch of learning for which both the kings and the rulers of Gujarāt have a great fondness. Grants of villages were made to these Brāhmans. Sidhpur was given to the Audīchyas, Sūmpura or Sihor in Kāthiāvāḍa to some other colony, and Sambhar or Cambay to the Srī Gauḍas. At Siddhapura Mūlarāja built the famous temple called the Rudramahālaya or the great shrine of Rudra. According to tradition Mūlarāja did not finish the Rudramahālaya and Siddhārāja finished it. In spite of this tradition it does not appear that Mūlarāja died leaving the great temple unfinished as a copperplate of A.D. 987 (S. 1043) records that

c10.s2.30

¹ The Jashmi-Vihāra Jain temple in Jesalmir built by the Jain Sangha is named after the reigning king Lakshmana.

c10.s2.31

² The copperplate of Mūlarāja records a grant to this temple, said to be of Mūlesvara at Maṇḍali in the Vardhi zilla, apparently the modern Māndal near Viramgam in the Jhalāwār province near Jhunjhavāḍa. The grant is in Samvat 1043 and refers to Aṇahilapura though the actual gift was made at Sristhala or Siddhapur on the Sarasvatī and worshipping the god of the Rudramahālaya. The grant is of the village of Kamboika, the modern Kamboi near Modhera. Ind. Ant. VI. 191. The grant is said to have been written by a Kayastha named Mahattara and with the words " of the illustrious Mūlarāja."

c10.s2.32

THE CHAULUKYAS, A.D. 961-1242.

Mūlarāja, A.D. 961-996

c10.s2.t1.1

Mūlarāja made the grant after worshipping the god at the Rudramahālaya on the occasion of a solar eclipse in the dark half of Māgha. It would seem therefore that he built the Rudramahālaya which Siddhārāja is said to have completed. Mūlarāja is said while still in health to have abdicated the throne, an act which some writers trace to religious and others to political reasons. The Vichāraśreṇi gives the Mūlarāja’s reign at thirty-five years A.D. 961-996 (S. 1017-1053). The Prabandhachintāmani begins the reign at A.D. 942 (S. 998) and ends A.D. 997 (S. 1053) that is a length of fifty-five years. The thirty-five years seems the more probable, as if this calculation be correct, Mūlarāja can scarcely have been a young man when he overthrew his uncle’s power.

c10.s2.t1.2

Of Mūlarāja’s son and successor Chāmuṇḍa no historical information is available. The author of the Dvayāśraya assigns him a reign of thirteen years. The author of the Dvayāśraya says he had three sons Vallabha Rāja, Durlabha, and Nāga Rāja. According to one account Chāmuṇḍa resigned Vallabha in A.D. 1010 (S. 1066) and went on pilgrimage to Benares. On his way through Mālwā Muñja the Mālwā king carried off Chāmuṇḍa’s umbrella and other marks of royalty. Chāmuṇḍa went on to Benares in the guise of a hermit. On his return he heard of the insult offered by the king of Mālwā. Vallabha started with an army but died of small-pox. The author of the Prabandhachintāmani gives Chāmuṇḍa a reign of six months, while the author of the Vichāraśreṇi entirely drops his name and gives the reign of thirteen years to Vallabha made up of the thirteen years of Chāmuṇḍa and the months of Vallabha. This seems to be the view which is the more correct, as is done in several copies, and no doubt Vallabha since he must have reigned jointly with his father and he was not wanted for purposes of succession. The Vichāraśreṇi and Prabandhachintāmani agree in ending the reign in A.D. 1010 (S. 1066). The author of the Dvayāśraya says that Chāmuṇḍa, greatly lamenting the death of Vallabha, crowned his younger brother Durlabha, and himself retired to the banks of the Narbadā.

c10.s2.t1.3

Durlabha whom the Sukritasankīrtana calls the Jagat-svāmī or World Guardian came to the throne in A.D. 1010. The Prabandhachintāmani gives the length of his reign as twelve years and six months while the Vichāraśreṇi makes it twelve years and ends it in A.D. 1022 (S. 1078). The author of the Dvayāśraya says that along with his brother Nāga Rāja, Durlabha attended the Svayamvara or bridegroom-choosing of Durlabha Devī the sister of Mahendra.

c10.s2.t1.4

¹ The difference between 1053 and 1058 is probably due to a copyist’s error.

c10.s2.t1.5

² The fight with Muñja must have taken place about A.D. 997 (S. 1053). Chāmuṇḍa started just after installing Vallabha the beginning of the reign is before A.D. 997 as Tailapa who fought with Muñja in that year. A copperplate manuscript dated A.D. 994 (S. 1050) which gives the name of Muñja. Thus Bhoja Muñja’s successor was ruling in A.D. 1011 (S. 1070), makes it probable Muñja’s reign extended to A.D. 1011 (S. 1067).

c10.s2.t1.6

Raja of Nâga Râja of Mârwâr. The kings of Anga, Kâsí, Avantí, Chedi, Kanyakubja, Mathurâ, Vindhya, and Andhra were also present.¹ The princess chose Durlabha and Mahendra gave his younger sister Durlabhadeví to Durlabha's brother Nâga Râja. The princess' choice of Durlabha brought upon him the enmity of certain of the other kings all of whom he defeated. The brothers then returned to Anahilavâda where Durlabha built a lake called Durlabhasarovara. The author of the Prabandhachintâmani says that Durlabha gave up the kingdom to Bhima. He also states that Durlabha went on pilgrimage and was lost in the way by Muñja king of Mâlwa. This seems to be contrary to the Dvyâśraya tells of Châmunda. Since Muñja was a contemporary of Durlabha the Dvyâśraya's account is the more correct.

c10.s2.t1.7

¹ The list of attendant and rival kings seem imaginary. The kingdom was not important enough to draw kings from the countries named. It is certain that Bhima was Durlabha's nephew not his son.

c10.s2.t1.8

Durlabha was succeeded by his nephew Bhima the son of Durlabha's younger brother Nâga Râja. The author of the Dvyâśraya says that Durlabha wishing to retire from the world offered the kingdom to his brother Nâga Râja but Bhima declined in favour of his father Nâga Râja. The latter also refused; that Durlabha and Nâga Râja persuaded Bhima to take the government; and that after installing Bhima they both retired together. Such a voluntary double death sounds purely legendary. The result was due to the machinations of Bhima. The Prabandhachintâmani gives Bhima a reign of fifty-two years from A.D. 1022 to 1074 (S. 1078-1130), while the Vichâraśrení gives him forty-two years placing his close in A.D. 1064 (S. 1120). The two years would seem to be correct as another copy of the Prabandhachintâmani has 42.

c10.s2.t1.9

Two copperplates of Bhima are available one dated A.D. 1030 (S. 1086) or nine years after he came to the throne, the other dated A.D. 1031 (S. 1088).

c10.s2.t1.10

Bhima seems to have been more powerful than either of his predecessors. According to the Dvyâśraya his two chief enemies were the kings of Sindh and of Chedi or Bundelkhand. He led a victorious expedition against Hammuka the king of Sindh, who had conquered the king of Kânyakubja and another against Karna king of Chedi who eventually submitted. The Prabandhachintâmani has a verse, apparently an old verse interpolated, which says that on the Mâlwa expedition, while sacking Dhârâpurí, Karna took Bhima as a prisoner, and that afterwards Bhima's general Dâmara took Karna prisoner and took from him a gold mandapikâ or canopy and images of the god Nílakantheśvara Mahâdeva. Bhima is said to have presented the canopy to Somanâtha.

c10.s2.t1.11

When Bhima was engaged against the king of Sindh, Kulachandra the general of the Mâlwa king Bhoja with all the Mâlwa feudatories, invaded Anahilavâda, sacked the city, and sowed shell-money at the place where the time-marking gong was sounded. So great was the destruction.

c10.s2.t1.12

The list of attendant and rival kings seem imaginary. The kingdom was not important enough to draw kings from the countries named. It is certain that Bhima was Durlabha's nephew not his son.

c10.s2.t1.13

THE CHAULUKYAS. A.D. 961-1242. Bhima I. A.D. 1022-1064.

c10.s2.t1.14

loss that the ‘sacking of Kulachandra’ has passed into a proverb. Kulachandra also took from Aṇahilavāḍa an acknowledgment of defeat or jayapatra. On his return Bhoja received Kulachandra with honours, but blamed him for not sowing salt instead of shell-money. It is said the shell-money is an omen that the wealth of Malwa will flow to Gujarāt. An unpublished inscription of Bhoja’s successor, Udayāditya, in a temple at Udepur near Bhilsā confirms the above statement that Bhīma was conquered by Bhoja’s officers.¹

c10.s2.t1.15

¹ By sowing cowries Kulachandra may have meant to show the cheapness of lives lost. Bhoja’s meaning was that as shells are money, to sow shells means wealth in Gujarāt. If Kulachandra had sown salt all would have melted, and none been left. This seems a symbolic later-stage explanation. The sowing of salt or sowing keeps the Aṇahilavāḍa guardians in place since guardians of the soil by sowing scares the guardian spirits and makes the site of the city the property of Bhoja’s city that thanks to his general the Luck of Aṇahilavāḍa would remain in his shells.

c10.s2.t1.16

The Solaṅki kings of Aṇahilapura being Saivites, held the temple of Somanātha of Prabhāsa in great veneration. The very ancient and holy shrine of Prabhāsa has long been a place of special pilgrimage, as early as the Yādavas of Dvārkā,² pilgrimages to Prabhāsa are mentioned, but the Mahābhārata makes no mention either of Somanātha or of any other Saivite shrine. The shrine of Somanātha was probably not established before the time of the Valabhis (A.D. 480-766). As the Valabhi kings were most open-handed in religious gifts, it was probably through their grants that the Somanātha temple rose to importance. The Solaṅkis were not behind the Valabhis in devotion to Somanātha. To save pilgrims from oppression, Mūlarāja fought Graharipu the Abhīra king of Somanātha. Mūlarāja also went to Prabhāsa and also built temples in Gujarāt in honour of the god Somanātha. As Mūlarāja’s successors Chāmuṇḍa and Durlabha continued firm devotees of Somanātha during their reigns (A.D. 997-1022), the wealth of the temple must have greatly increased.

c10.s2.t1.17

² See above page 9.

c10.s2.t1.18

Mahmúd’s Invasion, A.D. 1024.

c10.s2.t1.19

No Gujarāt Hindu writer refers to the destruction of the great temple soon after Bhīma’s accession. But the Musalmān historians place beyond doubt that in A.D. 1024 the famous temple was...

c10.s2.t1.20

³ The Prabandhachintāmaṇi tells other stories of the relations between Bhīma and Bhoja. Once when Gujarāt was suffering from famine Bhīma heard of Bhoja coming with a force against Gujarāt. Alarmed at the news Bhīma sent Dāmara, his minister of peace and war to prevent Bhoja coming. Dāmara went to Bhoja, amused the king by witty stories, and while a play was being acted in court he began joking other kings, something that was said regarding Tailapa of Telingana. On this Bhoja reminded the king that the head of his grandfather Muñja was fixed at Tailapa’s gate. Bhoja grew excited and started with an army against Telingana. Hearing this, Bhīma had come against him as far as Bhīmapura (?) Bhoja asked Dāmara to prevent Bhīma advancing further. Dāmara stopped Bhīma by taking him an elephant as a present from Bhoja. The Prabandhachintāmaṇi gives numerous other stories showing that at times the relations between Bhoja and Bhīma were friendly. † See above page 160. ‡ With this silence compare the absence (Reinaud’s Mémoire Sur l’Inde) of any reference either in Sanskrit or in Buddhist books to the victories, even those of Alexander the Great. Also in modern times the ignoring of British rule in the inscriptions of Jain repairers of temples on Satrunjaya hill who belong to the territory. The only foreign reference is by one merchant of Daman who mentions the protection of the Firangi jāti Puratabāla Pātashāhi the king of the Firangis. Portugal. Bühler in Epigraphia Indica, II. 36.

c10.s2.t1.21

Mahmūd of Ghazni, ended in the destruction and plunder of Somanātha.

c10.s2.t1.22

Of the destruction of Somanātha the earliest Musalmān account, that of Ibn Asīr (A.D. 1160-1229), supplies the following details: In the year A.D. 1024 (H. 414) Mahmūd captured several forts and cities in Hind and he also took the idol called Somanātha. This idol was the greatest of all the idols of Hind. At every eclipse the Hindus went on pilgrimage to the temple, and there congregated to the number of a hundred thousand persons. According to their doctrine of transmigration the Hindus believe that after separation from the body the souls of men meet at Somanātha and that the ebb and flow of the tide is the worship paid to the best of its power by the sea to the idol. All that is most precious in India was brought to Somanātha. The temple attendants received the most valuable presents, and the temple was endowed with more than 10,000 villages. In the temple were stored jewels of the most exquisite quality and of incalculable value. The people of India have a great river called Ganga to which they pay the highest honour and into which they cast the bones of their dead in the belief that the deceased will thus secure an entrance into heaven. Though between this river and Somanātha is a distance of about 1000 miles (200 parasangs) water was daily brought from it to wash the idol. Every day a thousand Brahmans performed the service and introduced visitors. The shaving of the heads and beards of pilgrims employed three hundred barbers. Three hundred musicians and persons sang and danced at the gate of the temple, every one receiving a settled daily allowance. When Mahmūd was gaining victories and demolishing idols in North India, the Hindus said Somanātha is displeased with these idols. If Somanātha had been satisfied with them no one could have destroyed or injured them. When Mahmūd heard this he resolved on making a campaign to destroy Somanātha, believing that when the Hindus saw their prayers and supplications to be false and futile they would embrace the Faith.

c10.s2.t1.23

So he prayed to the Almighty for aid, and with 30,000 horse and numerous volunteers left Ghazni on the 10th Sha'bān (H. 414, A.D. 1024).

c10.s2.t1.24

¹ Elliot and Dowson, II. 468-7. Sir H. M. Elliot gives extracts for this expedition from Ibn-ul-Athīr, Tabakāt-i-Akbari, Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri, and Rauzat-us-safā.

c10.s2.t1.25

² In earliest times Hindus have held eclipse days sacred. According to the Purānas the Yadavas of Dwārka came to Somanātha for an eclipse fair. Great fairs are held at Somanātha on the Kārtika and Chaitra (December and April) full moons.

c10.s2.t1.26

³ This Indian sign is expressed in a verse in an inscription in Somanātha Patan itself. The legend must be taken vaguely.

c10.s2.t1.27

⁴ Sachau's Alberuni, II. 104. Every day they brought Somanātha a jug of Ganges water and a basket of Kashmir flowers. Somanātha they believed cured every disease and healed every desperate and incurable disease. The reason why Somanātha became so famous was that it was a harbour for those who went to and fro from Zanzibar to China. It is still the practice to carry Ganges water to bathe Somanātha.

c10.s2.t1.28

⁵ This is paid to the local Sompura Brahmans who still number more than five hundred in Somanātha Patan.

c10.s2.t1.29

⁶ This is the first rite performed by pilgrims.

c10.s2.t1.30

⁷ These are now chiefly found in the temples of Southern India.

c10.s2.t1.31

Somanātha, A.D. 1024.

c10.s2.t1.32

He took the road to Multán and reached it in the middle of Ramzán. The road from Multán to India lay through a barren desert without inhabitants or food. Mahmúd collected provisions for the passage and loading 30,000 camels with water and corn started for Anahilaváda. After he had crossed the desert he perceived on one side a fort full of people in which place there were wells. The leaders came to conciliate him, but he invested the place, and God gave him victory over it, for the hearts of the people failed them through fear. He brought the place under the sway of Islám, killed the inhabitants, and broke to pieces their images. His men carrying water with them marched for Anahilaváda, where they arrived at the beginning of Zilkáda.

c10.s2.t1.33

The Chief of Anahilaváda, called Bhím, fled hastily, and abandoning his city went to a certain fort for safety and to prepare for war. Mahmúd pushed on for Somanátha. On his march he came to several forts in which were many images serving as chamberlains or heralds of Somanátha. These Mahmúd called Shaitan or devils. He killed the people, destroyed the fortifications, broke the idols in pieces, and through a waterless desert marched to Somanátha. In the desert had he met 10,000 fighting men whose chiefs would not submit. He sent troops against them, defeated them, put them to flight, and plundered their possessions. From the desert he marched to Dabalwárah, two days' journey from Somanátha. The people of Dabalwárah stayed in the city believing that the word of Somanátha would drive back the invaders. Mahmúd took the place, slew the men, plundered their property, and marched to Somanátha.

c10.s2.t1.34

Reaching Somanátha on a Thursday in the middle of Zilkáda Mahmúd beheld a strong fortress built on the sea-shore, so that its walls were washed by tide waves.³ From the walls the people jeered at the Musalmáns. Our deity, they said, will cut off the last man of you and destroy you all. On the morrow which was Friday the assailants advanced to the assault. When the Hindus saw how the Musalmáns fought they abandoned their posts and left the walls. The Musalmáns planted their ladders and scaled the walls. From the top they raised their war-cry and showed the might of Islám. Still their loss was so heavy that the issue seemed doubtful. A body of Hindus hurried to Somanátha, cast themselves on the ground before him, and besought him to grant them victory. Night came on and the fight was stayed.

c10.s2.t1.35

³ The waves still beat against the walls of the ruined fort of Somanátha.

c10.s2.t1.36

Early next morning Mahmúd renewed the battle. His men made greater havoc among the Hindus till they drove them from the town to the house of their idol Somanátha. At the gate of the temple the slaughter was dreadful. Band after band of the defenders entered the temple and standing before Somanátha with their hands clasped round their necks wept and passionately entreated him. Then they issued forth to fight and fought till they were slain. The few left alive took to the sea in boats but the Musalmáns overtook them and some were killed and some were drowned.

c10.s2.t1.37

¹ Mahmúd seems to have crossed the desert from Multán and Baháwalpur to Bikánir and thence to Ajmir.

c10.s2.t1.38

² Apparently Delváda near Uná. Mahmúd's route seems to have been from Anahilaváda to Modhera and Mándal, thence by the Little Ran near Pátri and Bajána, and thence by Jhalávád Gohelvád and Babriávád to Delváda.

c10.s2.t1.39

The temple of Somanátha rested on fifty-six pillars of teakwood covered with lead.¹ The idol was in a dark chamber. The height of the idol was five cubits and its girth three cubits. This was what appeared to the eye; two cubits were hidden in the basement. It had no appearance of being sculptured. Mahmúd seized it, part of it he burnt, and part he carried with him to Ghazni, where he made it a step at the entrance of the Great Mosque. The dark shrine was lighted by exquisitely jewelled chandeliers. Near the idol was a chain of gold 200 maunds in weight. To the chain bells were fastened. And when each watch of the night was over the chain was shaken and the ringing of the bells roused a fresh party of Bráhmans to carry on the worship. In the treasury which was near the shrine were many idols of gold and silver. Among the treasures were veils set with jewels, every jewel of immense value. What was found in the temple was worth more than two millions of dinárs. Over fifty thousand Hindus were slain.²

c10.s2.t1.40

¹ This shows that the temple was a building of brick and wood. According to Alberuni (Sachau, II. 105) the temple was built about a hundred years before Mahmúd's invasion. A local inscription at Patan states that Bhimadeva I. (A.D. 1022-1072) rebuilt the Somanátha temple of stone. In Dr. Bhagvánlál's opinion the first dynasty in Gujarát to make stone buildings were the Solankis. Before them buildings and temples were of wood and brick.

c10.s2.t1.41

² Of the fate of the great Linga Alberuni (Sachau, II. 103) writes: Prince Mahmúd ordered the upper part to be broken. The rest with all its coverings and trappings of gold jewels and embroidered garments he transported to Ghazni. Part of it together with the brass Chakravarti or Vishnu of Thánesvar has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town: part lies before the mosque for people to rub their feet on.

c10.s2.t1.42

After the capture of Somanátha, Mahmúd received intelligence that Bhim the chief of Anahilaváda had gone to the fort of Khandahat,³ about 340 miles (40 parasangs) from Somanátha between that place and the desert. Mahmúd marched to Khandahat. When he came before it he questioned some men who were hunting as to the tide. He learned that the ford was practicable, but that if the wind blew a little the crossing was dangerous. Mahmúd prayed to the Almighty and entered the water. He and his forces passed safely and drove out the enemy. From Khandahat he returned intending to proceed against Mansura in central Sindh, whose ruler was an apostate Muhammadan. At the news of Mahmúd's approach the chief fled into the date forests. Mahmúd followed, and surrounding him and his adherents, many of these were slain, many drowned, and few escaped. Mahmúd then went to Bhātia, and after reducing the inhabitants to obedience, returned to Ghazni where he arrived on the 10th Safar 417 H. (A.D. 1026).

c10.s2.t1.43

³ The paragraph relating to Mahmúd's return will be found on page 249 of the same volume of Sir H. Elliot's work. Khandahat which must have been on the coast has not been identified. The description suggests some coast island in the gulf of Kacch. By the Girnár route forty parasangs or that is 240 miles would reach the Kacch coast. Kanthkot in Vágar in east Kacch suits well in sound and is known to have been a favourite resort of the Solankis. But the ebb and flow of the tide close to it are difficult to explain. The identification with Kanthkot is favoured by Dr. Bühler, Colonel Watson (Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 80) prefers Gándhvi on the Káthiáwáda coast a few miles north-east of Miani. M. Reinaud and Dr. Weil suggest Gandhar in Broach on the left bank of the mouth of the Dhadhar river. Sir H. Elliot (I. 415 and II. 473) prefers Khandahat at the north-west angle of Káthiáwáda.

c10.s2.t1.44

The Rauzatu-s-safá of Mirkhand supplements these details with the following account of Mahmūd’s arrangements for holding Gujarat. It is related that when Sultan Mahmūd had achieved the conquest of Somanātha he wished to fix his residence there for some years, as the country was very extensive and possessed many advantages, and them several mines which produced pure gold. Indian wives were brought from Sarandīp, one of the dependencies of the kingdom of Gujarāt. His ministers represented to Mahmūd that the air of Khurāsān which had been won from his enemies after so many struggles and to make Somanātha the seat of government was very improper. At last the king made up his mind to return and ordered a person to be appointed to hold and carry on the administration of the country. The ministers observed that as it was impossible for him to maintain possession he should assign the country to one of the native chiefs. The Sultān accordingly held a council to make a nomination, in concurrence with such of the inhabitants as were well disposed towards him. Some of them represented to him that amongst the ancient royal families no house was so noble as that of the Dābshilims of whom only one member survived, and he had assumed the habit of a Brāhman, and was devoted to philosophical pursuits and austerity.¹

c10.s2.t1.45

¹ According to Ferishta (Bombay Persian Ed. I. 57, Briggs’ Translation, I. 72) Mahmūd stayed and meant to make his capital at Anahilavāda not at Somanātha. That Mahmūd did stay at Anahilavāda the Martyr’s Masjid and the Jāmi’ Masjid in Patan are evidence. Still the masjid was probably raised and the town may at least have been begun in honour of the capture of Anahilavāda in the year 416. Traces of a second mosque which is said to have had a tablet recording Mahmūd of Ghazni as the builder have recently (1878) been found at Munjpur about twenty-five miles south-east of Rāthanpur.

c10.s2.t1.46

That Mahmūd should have found it necessary to appoint some native chief to keep order in Gujarāt is probable. It is also probable that he would choose some one hostile to the defeated king. It has been suggested above that Bhīma’s uncle Durlabha did not retire but was ousted by his nephew and that the story of Vallabha and Durlabha dying together pointed to some usurpation on the part of Bhīma. The phrase the Dābshilims seems to refer either to Durlabha or his son. Whoever was chosen must have lost his power soon after Mahmūd’s departure.²

c10.s2.t1.47

² Briggs’ Ferishta, I. 75. This account of the Dābshilims reads more like a tradition than an historical record. It is to be noted that the authors both of the Tārīkh-i-Akbarī (A.D. 1583) and of the Mirāt-i-Ahmadī (A.D. 1762) give Chāmunḍa a king at the time of Mahmūd’s invasion. Their statements cannot weigh against the Arab account. Compare Dr. Bāhler’s remarks in Ind. Ant. VI. 184. Of Mahmūd’s retreat in the year (A.D. 1026) the Tabaqāt-i-Akbarī says: ‘When Mahmūd resolved to return from Somanātha he learned that Parama Dev, one of the greatest Rājās of Hindustān, was preparing to intercept him. The Sultān, not deeming it advisable to contend with this chief, went towards Multān through Sindh. In this journey his men suffered much in the desert from scarcity of water in others from want of forage. After enduring great difficulties he arrived at Ghazni in A.D. 1029 (H. 417).’ This Parama Dev would seem to be the Parmāra king of A’bu who could well block the Ajmīr-Gujarat route. The route taken by Mahmūd must have passed by Maustra near Brāhmanābād, Bhātia, and Multān.

c10.s2.t1.48

An inscription at Somanātha shows that soon after Mahmūd was gone, Bhīma began to build a temple of stone in place of the former one of brick and wood.

c10.s2.t1.49

A few years later Bhīma was on bad terms with Dhandhuka the Paramāra chief of Abu, and sent his general Vimala to subdue him. Dhandhuka submitted and made over to Vimala the beautiful Chitra-kūṭa or peak of Abu, where, in A.D. 1032 (S. 1088), Vimala built the celebrated Jain temples known as Vimalavasahi still one of the glories of Abu.¹

c10.s2.t1.50

¹ The tradition of the crossing of the great desert that he suffered so severely from scarcity of water is told by Ferishta (Briggs, I. 75) says that many of Mahmūd's troops died from the intolerable heat and thirst. The historian Muhammad Ufi (quoted in Elliot, II. 192) that two Hindus disguised as countrymen offered themselves as guides and led the army three days' march out of the right course, where they were saved only by Mahmūd's miraculous discovery of a pool of sweet water. The story of the self-sacrificing Brahman or priest and the miraculous find of water is regarded by Mahmūd as the latest of myth centres. It is Herodotus (Book III. 322) and the Zopyrus tale (Rawlinson's Seventh Monarchy, 318); it is revived in the story of the Great Kushan Kanishka, A.D. 78 (Beruni in Elliot, II. 11), of the Roman army in A.D. 427-433 (Rawlinson's Seventh Monarchy, 318), and of a certain king of the Ghazni or Ghazni of uncertain date (Elliot II. 176). Similarly the puzzling story of the desert seems to be peculiar neither to Gujarat nor to Mahmūd of Ghazni. It is a repetition of the tale of Dabalīm the man of the royal race, who, according to the Panchatantra or Fables of Pilpai, was chosen successor of Porus after the Great King's Viceroy had been driven out. (Compare Renaud's Mémoire Sur l'Inde). The Tabakat-i-Nāsiri (A.D. 1227) adds (Elliot, II. 475) that the guide died for the sake of Somanātha and this account is adopted by Ferishta. (Briggs, translation, I. 75).

c10.s2.t1.51

Bhīma had three wives Udayāmatī who built a step-well at Aṇahilavāḍa, Bakulādevī, and another. These ladies were the mothers of Kshemarāja, and Mūlarāja. Of the three sons Mūlarāja, though his mother's name is unknown, was the eldest and the heir-apparent.

c10.s2.t1.52

The chronicler Mūlarāja the author of the Prabandhachintāmaṇi tells a curious tale: In a year of scarcity the Kuṭumbikas or cultivators of the province of Daṇḍahī found themselves unable to pay the king his share of the land-produce. Bhīmarāja sent a minister to inquire and he was brought before the king all the well-to-do people of the neighbouring villages. One day prince Mūlarāja saw these men being led to one another in alarm. Taking pity on them he pleased the king by his skilful riding. The king asked him to name a boon and the prince begged that the demand on the villagers might be remitted. The boon was granted, the ryots went home in glee, but within three days Mūlarāja was dead. Next season yielded a bumper harvest, and the people came to present the king with his share for that year as well as with the remitted share for the previous year. Bhīdev declined to receive the arrears. A jury appointed by the king settled that the value of the produce for both years should be placed in the king's treasury for the erection of a temple called the new Tripurushaprasāda for the spiritual welfare of prince Mūlarāja.²

c10.s2.t1.53

² Prasāda is Sanskrit for Vastu that is residence. The word is used to mean a group of buildings. Later mentions of a Tripurushaprasāda show there was only one building of that name. The statement that the great Mūlarāja I. built a Tripurushaprasāda is a mistake, due to a confusion with prince Mūlarāja.

c10.s2.t1.54

Bhima reigned forty-two years. Both the Prabandhachintamani and the Vicharasreni mention Karna as his successor. According to the Dvyasraya Bhima, wishing to retire to a religious life, offered the succession to Kshemaraja. But Kshemaraja also was weary of the labour of ruling and it was settled that Karna should succeed.

c10.s2.t1.55

Bhima died soon after and Kshemaraja retired to a holy place on the Sarasvati named Mundakesvara not far from Anahilvada. Karna is said to have granted Dahithali a neighbouring village to Desaprasada the son of Kshemaraja that he might attend on his father in his religious seclusion. But as the Kumarapalacharita mentions Kshemaraja being settled at Dahithali as a ruler not as an ascetic it seems probable that Dahithali was granted to Kshemaraja for maintenance as villages are still granted to the bhayats or brethren of the ruler.

c10.s2.t1.56

Karna who came to the throne in A.D. 1064 (S. 1120) had a more peaceful reign than his predecessors. He was able to build charitable public works among them a temple called Karna-meru at Anahilvada. His only war was an expedition against Asha Bhil, chief of six lakhs of Bhils residing at Ashapalli the modern village of Asaval near Ahmadabad.¹ Asha was defeated and slain. In consequence of an omen from a local goddess named Kochharva,² Karna built her a temple in Asaval and also built temples to Jayanti Devi and Karnesvara Mahadeva. He made a lake called Karnasagara and founded a city called Karnavati which he made his capital.

c10.s2.t1.57

¹ Meaning a large number of Bhils of whom A'sha was the head.

c10.s2.t1.58

² Forbes' Ras Mala (New Ed.), 79.

c10.s2.t1.59

Karna had three ministers Munjala, Santu, and Udaya. Udaya was a Srimali Vania of Marwar, who had settled in Anahilvada and who was originally called Uda. Santu built a Jain temple called Santu-vasahi and Uda built at Karnavati a large temple called Udaya-varaha, containing seventy-two images of Tirthankars, twenty-four past, twenty-four present, and twenty-four to come. By different wives Uda had five sons, Asada or Asthada, Chahada, Babada, Ambada, and Solla, of whom the last three were half-brothers of the first two.³ Except Solla, who continued a merchant and became very wealthy, all the sons entered the service of the state and rose to high stations during the reign of Kumarapala.

c10.s2.t1.60

³ Probably a Bhil goddess. The name does not sound Sanskrit.

c10.s2.t1.61

In late life Karna married Mayanalladevi daughter of Jayakesi son of Subhakesi king of the Karnataka. According to the Dvyasraya a wandering painter showed Karna the portrait of a princess whom he described as daughter of Jayakesi the Kadamba king⁴ of Chandrapura¹ in the Dakhan, and who he said had taken a vow to marry Karna. In token of her wish to marry Karna the painter and the princess had sent Karna an elephant. Karna went to see the present and found on the elephant a beautiful princess who had come so far in the hope of winning him for a husband. According to the Prabandhachintamani Karna found the princess ugly and refused to marry her. On this the princess with eight attendants determined to burn themselves on a funeral pyre and Udayámati Karna's mother also declared that if he did not relent she too would be a sacrifice. Under this compulsion Karna married the princess but refused to treat her as a wife. The minister Muñjála, learning from a kañchuki or palace-servant that the king loved a certain courtezan, contrived that Miyánalladevi should take the woman's place, a device still practised by ministers of native states. Karna fell into the snare and the queen became pregnant by him, having secured from the hand of her husband his signet ring as a token which could not be disclaimed. Thus in Karna's old age Miyánalladevi became the mother of the illustrious Siddharája who, according to a local tradition quoted by Mr. Forbes, first saw the light at Pálanpur.² When three years old the precocious Siddharája climbed and sat upon the throne. This ominous event being brought to the king's notice he consulted his astrologers who advised that from that day Siddharája should be installed as heir-apparent.

First 93 of 233 passages. Read on

Cites (35)