Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c19: Chapter IX. The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Northern India

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c19

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX. The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Northern India

v1.c19.2

The late Dr. Burnell was inclined to look upon the Rāṣṭrakūṭas as Dravidian in origin. 'He gave the word *rāṣṭra* as a mythological perversion of *raṭṭa* which he held to be equivalent to the Kanarese or Telegu *Raddi* or *reḍḍi*,' denoting 'the caste of aboriginal Teligu farmers.'¹ Fleet, however, maintained the view that *raṭṭa* is an abbreviation of Rāṣṭrakūṭa, rather than Rāṣṭrakūṭa an amplified form of *raṭṭa*. According to this theory, *raṭṭa* is a Prakrit form of the Sanskrit *rāṣṭra*, meaning a province. Without entering into the complicated question of the ethnic origin of the various families who called themselves *Rāṣṭrakūṭas*, *Raṭṭas*, *Rāṣṭikas*, *Raṭrakas*, *Rāṣṭrauḍas*, *Rāṣṭroḍas*, *Rāṭhaḍās*, and *Rāthoṛs*, we may now hold that these designations are all derived from the word *rāṣṭra*. From very ancient times officers who were in charge of provinces were known as *Rāṣṭriyas*. The Girnar inscription of Rudradāman mentions the *Rāṣṭriya* Puṣyagupta of the Vaiśya caste, who was an officer of the Maurya emperor Candragupta in Kathiawar. Kielhorn, while editing the record, took the word *Rāṣṭriya* in the sense of 'a provincial governor.'² Since then it has been pointed out that the *Rāṣṭrapālas* of the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya and the *Rāṣṭriyas* were synonymous terms.³ The fact that the former used to receive a salary equal to that of the *Kumāras* or princely viceroys, makes it very probable that the *Rāṣṭrapālas* were viceroys of non-royal families. In the land-grants of the 10th and 11th centuries A.D. the word *Rāṣṭrapati*¹ and *Rāṣṭrakūṭa*² frequently occur in the list of officers addressed by the royal donor before making the grant. The fact that the *Rāṣṭriya* Puṣyagupta was a Vaiśya, while the *Rāṣṭrakūṭas* of Mānyakheṭa claimed to be Kṣatriyas of the lunar race, supports the conclusion that all the above words had a professional rather than an ethnic significance. Like the Bengali titles *Mazumdār*, *Cāklādār*, or *Tālūkdār*, these official names may have become in certain areas crystallised into family, caste, or tribal names. It will therefore probably be futile to connect all the families bearing names derived from *rāṣṭra* with one family or tribe. Though some of the *Rāṣṭrakūṭa* families of Northern India were undoubtedly connected with the great dynasty of Mānyakheṭa (*c.* 743-974 A.D.), it will perhaps be safer to assume that the other Rāṣṭrakūṭa houses whose connection with Mānyakheṭa is not apparent had an independent origin. In the following pages I shall try to give short accounts of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa families of Northern India, with the exception of the Gujarat branch of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas (*c.* 743-974 A.D.). These latter were descended from the Mānyakheṭa dynasty, and with the exception of a short period of about 80 years (*c.* 808-888 A.D.) were dependent on the main branch. Their history therefore belongs properly to the history of the Deccan.³

v1.c19.3

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 119-20; Part II, pp. 383-85, p. 385, fn. 2, and also p. 550 and fn. 9 on the same page.

v1.c19.4

² *EI*, Vol. VIII, p. 46.

v1.c19.5

³ *IA*, 1918, p. 145.

v1.c19.6

¹ *EI*, Vol. IX, p. 36.

v1.c19.7

² *Ibid*, p. 53.

v1.c19.8

³ For their history, see *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 119-34.

(1) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kanauj

v1.c19.s1.1

The Rāṭhoṛs of Jodhpur claim to be descended from the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kanauj. As their bardic chronicles trace their descent from ‘Jayacandra,’⁴ the last Gāhaḍavāla king of Kanauj, and as there is no evidence to show that the Gāhaḍavālas were Rāṣṭrakūṭas, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kanauj have been regarded by many scholars as a myth.¹ Recent investigations have however conclusively demonstrated the existence of a Rāṣṭrakūṭa family at Kanauj. It is not unlikely that the Rāṭhors of Jodhpur are really descended from this family. In their usual attempt to glorify their patrons the *praśastikāras* may have wrongly connected the Rāṭhors with ‘Jayacandra.’ It is however not absolutely impossible that the mistake was unconscious. It may have been caused by the fact that ‘Jayacandra’ was at the time of Muslim attack actually the sovereign ruler of Kanauj and the overlord of the feudatory Rāṣṭrakūṭa family of that place.

v1.c19.s1.2

⁴ Jayaccandra of the inscriptions, see *supra*, pp. 536-544.

v1.c19.s1.3

¹ *JRAS*, 1905, p. 10; *EHI*, 4th Ed., p. 399, fn. 5. Tod's *Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan*, Ed. by Crooke, Vol. I, p. 161, fn. 2; Vol. II, p. 824, fn. 2.

v1.c19.s1.4

The earliest reference to a Rāṣṭrakūṭa family at Kanauj is contained in the Surat grant of Trilocanapāla dated in 1151 A.D., which after mentioning the miraculous birth of Caulukya goes on to say that the latter married a princess of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kanyākubja.² Dr. Hoernle saw ‘no historical value’ in this statement, and tried to interpret the verse in a different way.³ But the existence of Rāṣṭrakūṭas in the vicinity of Kanauj is proved beyond all doubt by the *Budaun stone-inscription of Lakhaṇapāla*.⁴ This record was found in August 1887 in the ruins of the south gate of the old fort of Budaun,⁵ the chief town of the district of the same name in U.P. It contains 23 lines, written in Devanāgarī characters of about the 12th or 13th century A.D. It probably contained a date in line 23, but unfortunately the editor could not read it. The genealogical portion tells us that the town of Vodāmayūtā,⁶ the ornament of the land of Pañcāla, was protected by princes born in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family (*kula*). The inscription then gives the following list of these :

v1.c19.s1.5

² *IA*, Vol. XII, p. 201, V. 6, *JRAS*, 1905, p. 10.

v1.c19.s1.6

³ *JRAS*, 1905, pp. 10-11.

v1.c19.s1.7

⁴ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 61-66.

v1.c19.s1.8

⁵ According to Kielhorn, called Vodāmayūtā in the record (lines 1 and 11).

v1.c19.s1.9

⁶ Identified by Kielhorn with Budaun.

v1.c19.s1.10

```
(1) Candra.

v1.c19.s1.11

(2) Vigrahapāla.

v1.c19.s1.12

(3) Bhuvanapāla.

v1.c19.s1.13

(4) Gopāla . . . . . | . . . . .

v1.c19.s1.14

(5) Tribhubana.¹ (6) Madanapāla. (7) Devapāla.

v1.c19.s1.15

¹ Tribhuvanapāla?

v1.c19.s1.16

(8) Bhīmapāla.

v1.c19.s1.17

(9) Sūrapāla.²

v1.c19.s1.18

² Sūrapāla?

v1.c19.s1.19

(10) Amṛtapāla.

v1.c19.s1.20

(11) Lakhaṇapāla. ```

v1.c19.s1.21

It next proceeds to give the following list of the spiritual predecessors of the Śaiva ascetic Iśānaśiva, who in the reign of Lakhaṇapāla erected a Śaiva temple at Vodāmayūtā.

v1.c19.s1.22

(1) Varmaśiva....of Aṇahilapāṭaka;³ he destroyed by the efficacy of his *mantras* a Buddhist idol in Dakṣiṇāpatha. He came to the town of Vodāmayūtā in the reign of No. 7, and was appointed to the headship of a *maṭha* there, by his *Mantri*. Succeeded by:
(2) Mūrtigaṇa.....became the spiritual adviser of No. 9. Succeeded by his pupil:
(3) Iśānaśiva......born in Gauḍa, the eldest son of the twice-born Vasāvana, a resident of Siṁhapalli in the Hariyāṇa country.⁴ He founded a temple of Śiva and endowed it with the revenues of a place called Bhadaṇaulikā.

v1.c19.s1.23

³ Popularly known as Anhilwad. Mod. Patan on the Saraswati in N. Gujarat.

v1.c19.s1.24

⁴ Also mentioned in inscription No. 238 of Kielhorn's List of N. I. Inscriptions, *EI*, Vol. V, Appendix. Identified by Kielhorn with mod. Hariyana in the Hissar district of the Punjab.

v1.c19.s1.25

The inscription was composed by the poet Govindacandra.¹

v1.c19.s1.26

¹ Edited by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 61-66.

v1.c19.s1.27

This inscription bestows vague praise on most of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa princes with the exception of Madanapāla, the 6th of the line. We are told about this ruler that in consequence of his "distinguished prowess there never was any talk of Hamvīras' coming to the banks of the river of the gods" (Ganges). The identification of this Hamvīra with the Yamīnī Sulṭān Ma'sūd III² (*c.* 1099-1115 A.D.) is suggested by a Set Mahet Buddhist stone-inscription, dated in (V) Ś. 1176 (A.D. 1119-20),³ which mentions a Gādhi-purādhipa Gopāla and Madana, who are most probably to be identified with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa princes (4) and (6) in the Budaun record bearing the same names.⁴ As Budaun was conquered by Quṭb ud-Dīn in A. D. 1202 and was conferred as a fief on Shams ud-Din Iltutmish, we may infer that Lakhaṇapāla was the last Hindu ruler of that area, and probably flourished in the first quarter of the 13th century. If this date for him be correct, then we may assign Madanapāla, the 6th prince in the ascending line from Lakhaṇapāla, to the first quarter of the 12th century A. D. The proximity of the dates and of the areas, *viz.*, Badaun and Kanauj, leaves very little doubt that the two records relate to the same persons, Gopāla and Madanapāla.

v1.c19.s1.28

² See *supra*, chapter on the Gāhaḍavālas, pp. 514-15. First suggested by my pupil N. B. Sanyal, *JASB*, 1925, p. 105.

v1.c19.s1.29

³ See *supra*, pp. 505 and 518; inscription No. 10 of Gāhaḍavāla Govindacandra's reign.

v1.c19.s1.30

⁴ *JASB*, 1925, pp. 105 ff.

v1.c19.s1.31

As the Gāhaḍavāla Candradeva claims to have conquered Kanauj some time before 1090 A.D., it may be inferred that he conquered it from Gopāla. The descendants of Gopāla however appear to have been suffered to exist as feudatories by the Gāhaḍavālas. It is not unlikely that these Rāṣṭrakūṭas continued to hold Kanauj till the reign of Iltutmish (1911-36 A.D.), who conquered ‘Kinnauj-i-Shergarh’ and brought the territory of Oudh and Badaun under subjection.¹

v1.c19.s1.32

¹ *TN*, Vol. I, pp. 627-29; see also *supra*, chapter on the Gāhaḍavālas, p. 547, fn. 2. Consult *Rāṣṭrauḍha-vaṁśa-Mahākāvya* of Rudra Kavi, composed in *Śaka* 1518 (A.D. 1596), under the orders of king Nārāyaṇa Shāh of Mayūragiri (mod. Mulher, not far from Satana in Nasik District). The princes claim descent from Rāṣṭrauḍha, who was adopted by Nārāyaṇa, the childless king of Kanauj. The clan of Mayūragiri are known as the Bāgula clan of the Rathors and have the same *gotra* (Gautama) as that of the Jodhpur branch. The ancestors of Nārāyaṇa Shāh seem to have accepted service under Jayasiṁha of Anahillapura, and after the downfall of the Vāghelas migrated to the Nasik region.

(2) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of C. P. and C. I.

v1.c19.s2.1

The Rāṣṭrakūṭa families of C. P. and C. I. may be conveniently grouped under the headings of (1) *Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Mānapura*, (2) *Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Betul*, and (3) *Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Pathari*.

(a) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Mānapura

v1.c19.s2.t1.1

The existence of this family is known from the *Undikavāṭikā grant* of the Rāṣṭrakūta Abhimanyu. The exact find-spot of this is unknown. It contains·22 lines, incised on 3 plates. It is not dated, but has been referred approximately to the 7th century A.D. on palaeographic grounds.² The seal contains the figure of a lion couchant facing the proper right, with jaws open and tongue protruding.³ The grant opens with *Oṁ svasti* and in the introductory portion gives the following genealogy of the donor:—

v1.c19.s2.t1.2

² Fleet in *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 386; *EI*, Vol. VIII, p. 163. Jackson referred the grant to about 450 A.D., see *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 120.

v1.c19.s2.t1.3

³ The seals of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Mānyakheṭa contain the figure of a *Garuḍa*.

v1.c19.s2.t1.4

``` Māna or Mānāṅka......ornament of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas.

v1.c19.s2.t1.5

Devarāja.

v1.c19.s2.t1.6

Bhaviṣya. × ×

v1.c19.s2.t1.7

| \ . . . . . /
| |
| (Names not given.)
|

v1.c19.s2.t1.8

Abhimanyu. ```

v1.c19.s2.t1.9

This last ruler, while residing at Mānapura¹ granted the small village of Uṇḍikavāṭikā² to the god Dakṣiṇa-Śiva, through Jaṭāvāra, a *Pāśupata* ascetic in charge of the temple situated at Peṭha-Paṅgaraka.³ The grant was made in the presence of Jayasiṁha, the Harivatsa-*Koṭṭa-nigraha*.⁴

v1.c19.s2.t1.10

¹ Identified by Hultzsch with Manpur, near Bandhogarh, in Rewa, *EI*, Vol. VIII, p. 166; Bhagvanlal Indraji thought that it was an older form of the name Mānyakheṭa (mod. Malkheḍ), about 60 miles S.E. of Sholapur; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 120. Fleet at first identified it 'with the modern Mânpur in Malwa, about 12 miles S. W. of Mhow,' in the Indore Residency, C.I. (*ibid*, Part II, p. 386; *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 233-34), but later thought it not impossible that Mânpur may have been the older name of Shohagpur, or Sobhapur, which is a large village 6 miles on the N.E. of Shohagpur (*ibid*, Vol. XXX, p. 514).

v1.c19.s2.t1.11

² Identified with the mod. village of Oontia, near Pagara; the latter is 4 miles N. of Pachmarhi in Hoshangabad district, C.P., *IA*, Vol. XXX, p. 514.

v1.c19.s2.t1.12

³ The Mahāśiva temple at Pagara, about 4 miles north of Pachmarhi, in Hoshangabad district, C.P., has been identified with this Dakṣiṇa-Śiva temple; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 132; *IA*, Vol. XXX, p. 511.

v1.c19.s2.t1.13

⁴ Does it mean 'commandant of the fort of Harivatsa' ? *nigraha*=*pāla*? Its ordinary sense is, chastiser, but Fleet took *nigraha*=*pāla*, see *IA*, Vol. XXX, p. 510. The inscription was first published by Bhagvanlal Indraji in *JBRAS*, Vol. XVI, pp. 88 ff., and critically examined by Fleet in *IA*, Vol. XXX, pp. 509 ff. It was noticed in the *BG* by both Jackson and Fleet, and finally edited by Hultzsch in *EI*, Vol. VIII, pp. 163-66.

v1.c19.s2.t1.14

This land-grant of Abhimanyu seems to be the earliest inscription of the princes who designated their family as Rāṣṭrakūṭa. The lion-seal of the family of Mānāṅka may indicate that his line was quite distinct from the Malkheḍ family, who had the figure of Garuḍa on their seals. The town named Mānapura, from which the grant of Abhimanyu was issued, was probably founded by Mānāṅka. If its identification with Manpur near Mhow is accepted,⁵ we may infer that this family ruled over the valley of the Narbada from Mhow to Pachmarhi.

v1.c19.s2.t1.15

⁵ Fleet rejected this identification, suggested by him (in *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, p. 386) on the ground that it was north of the Narbada. This does not appear to me to be a sufficient reason.

(b) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Betul

v1.c19.s2.t2.1

The existence of this family is also known from a single grant, the *Multāi grant* of Nandarāja. It was found in the possession of a Gosain resident at Multāī, the chief town of the Multāī sub-division of the Betul district in the C. P.¹ It contains 31 lines of writing in Nāgarī characters, incised on 3 plates. The seal, which is a part of the ring itself, bears in outline the figure of *Garuḍa* and the legend *Śrī Yuddhāsuraḥ*. The record opens with *Oṁ svasti*, and then gives the following genealogy of the donor :

v1.c19.s2.t2.2

¹ Fleet pointed out that the localities mentioned in the grant do not bear any resemblance to any villages in the Multāī district or in Hoshangabad or Jubbulpore. It is therefore not certain that the grant really belongs to the locality where it was found. 'All that can be said on this point is that the characters show that it belongs to some part of Central India or of the Central Provinces;' *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 230-81.

v1.c19.s2.t2.3

In the *Rāṣṭrakūṭānvaya*

Durgarāja
|
Govindarāja
|
Svāmikarāja
|
Nandarāja, *alias* Yuddhāsura.

v1.c19.s2.t2.4

The object of the grant is to record the grant of the village of Jalaūkuhe to the Brahman Śrīprabha Caturveda. In line 29 we are told that the charter was written by the *Sāndhivigrahika* Naula in *Śaka-kāla-saṁvatsara* 631 (*c.* 709 A.D.).²

v1.c19.s2.t2.5

² First published by Prinsep in *JASB*, Vol. VI, pp. 869 ff. Re-edited by Fleet, *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 230-86.

v1.c19.s2.t2.6

Fleet thought that this family was a feudatory line. The figure on the seal is similar to that on the seal of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkheḍ. It may indicate that two lines were connected, but the connection is not apparent.

(c) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Pathari

v1.c19.s2.t3.1

The existence of this family is also known from a single inscription, the *Pathari stone pillar-inscription of Parabala*. This is incised on the northern face of a tall monolith with a bell-shaped capital, in Pathari (long. 78° 15′, lat. 23° 56′), the chief town of the State of the same name in the Bhopal Agency, C.I. It contains 36 lines. The characters resemble those of the Gwalior *praśasti* of Bhoja (V.S. 933). It opens with *Oṁ namaḥ* and four verses invoking the god Viṣṇu under the names of Murāri, Kṛṣṇa, and Hari, and then gives the genealogy of a line of kings as follows :

v1.c19.s2.t3.3

The proper object of the inscription is to record that this last king founded a temple of Śauri (Viṣṇu), before which he erected the *Garuḍa-dhvaja* pillar on which it was engraved. The first part of the inscription (lines 1-31) ends here. The second part (lines 32-38), which appears to have been added as post-script, then seems to record the installation of an image of Viṣṇu.¹ The date, (V) *Saṁvat* 917 (A.D. 861), comes at the end of the first part (line 31).²

v1.c19.s2.t3.4

¹ The inscription is damaged here.

v1.c19.s2.t3.5

² Edited by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 248-56.

v1.c19.s2.t3.6

This inscription supplies some facts of considerable historical importance. Kielhorn had already pointed out that the unknown elder brother of Jejja, who is reported to have conquered Lāṭa after defeating the Karṇātas, must be placed in the period 757-812 A.D., during which we know little about Lāṭa.¹ It thus appears likely that he may have conquered portions of Gujarat by defeating the armies of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of the Deccan (*Karṇāṭas*) after the death of Kakkarāja, the local Rāṣṭrakūṭa ruler, in 757 A.D. The Nāgāvaloka defeated by Karkarāja has also been identified by Kielhorn with the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Nāgabhaṭa II (*c.* 815-33 A.D.).² The enmity between these Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the rising power of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras appears to have brought them into friendly alliance with the Pālas of Bengal and Bihar. This is shown by the probable identification of the Parabala of our inscription with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Parabala of the Pāla records.³ The marriage of Raṇṇādevī, the daughter of Parabala, with Dharmapāla (*c.* 769-815 A.D.) must be accepted as the outward symbol of the close alliance between these two enemies of the Gurjara power. Another interesting fact is the mention of the *Pāli-dhvaja* banner in connection with the victories of Karkarāja and Parabala. The possession of this flag was claimed by both the Calukyas of Vātāpi⁴ and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkheḍ.⁵

v1.c19.s2.t3.7

¹ *Ibid*, p. 252; also *EI*, Vol. VII, Appendix II, p. 4. The period falls between *Mahārājādhirāja* Kakkarāja II (A.D. 757) and Indrarāja, the brother of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govinda III (*c.* 794-814 A.D.), for whose sons we have dates from 811 to 827 A.D.

v1.c19.s2.t3.8

² *EI*, Vol. IX, p. 251.

v1.c19.s2.t3.9

³ See *supra*, Dynastic History of Bengal and Bihar, p. 288 ; also *EI*, Vol. IX, p. 251.

v1.c19.s2.t3.10

⁴ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 189, 388, and 368.

v1.c19.s2.t3.11

⁵ *Ibid*, pp. 387 and 402.

(3) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Rajputana

v1.c19.s3.1

Inscriptions of Rāṣṭrakūṭa princes have been found in Rajputana with dates ranging from about 973 to 1366 V.S. They may be conveniently grouped under the following heads:—
(a) *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Hastikuṇḍi.*
(b) *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Dhanop.*
(c) *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas (Rāṭhaḍās) of Bithu.*

(a) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Hastikuṇḍi

v1.c19.s3.t1.1

The existence of this family was revealed by the discovery of the so-called *Bijapur stone-inscription of Dhavala.* According to ‘local report’ the stone was originally fixed in the wall of a solitary Jaina temple situated about 2 miles from the village of Bijapur in the Bali (Godwar) district of the state of Jodhpur.¹ The inscription consists of 32 lines, and contains two separate records. The first one extends from lines 1 to 22, the second from lines 23 to 32. The second record ‘opens with the praise of the Jaina religion.’ It then gives the following genealogy of a line of princes:—

v1.c19.s3.t1.2

¹ The inscription according to another report was discovered by Captain Burt “in the interior of a gateway leading to Mandir, distant one *kos* from Beejapoor, on the route from Odeypore to Sirohi near Mt. Ābū;” *JASB*, Vol. X, p. 821.

v1.c19.s3.t1.4

Harivarman

v1.c19.s3.t1.5

Vidagdharāja........*Śrī-Rāṣṭrakūṭa-kula-kānana-kalpa-vṛkṣa.*

v1.c19.s3.t1.6

Mammaṭa

v1.c19.s3.t1.7

The inscription then records that Vidhagndharāja built a *Caitya-gṛha* at Hastikuṇḍi² for his *guru* Balabhadra. The former prince in (V) Saṁvat 973 granted certain donations, ⅔rds of the proceeds of which were to go to the Jina (*Arhat*) and ⅓rd to the guru as *Vidyā-dāna*. These grants were renewed by Mammaṭa in V. S. 996. The closing verse expresses a wish that the endowments may be enjoyed by the progeny of Keśavadāsa Sūri as long as mountains, etc., last. The inscription was engraved by the *Sūtradhāra* Satayogeśvara.

v1.c19.s3.t1.8

² Mod. Hathundi, close to the village of Bijapur, 10 miles to the south of Bāli, the headquarters of a district of the same name in Jodhpur; *IGI*, Vol. VI, p. 247.

v1.c19.s3.t1.9

The *first record* opens with two verses in praise of the Jinas or Tīrthaṅkaras. Then follows the genealogy of the same line of princes as above :—

v1.c19.s3.t1.10

``` Harivarman = Ruci

v1.c19.s3.t1.11

Vidagdha . . . . . induced to build a temple of Jina in the

v1.c19.s3.t1.12

| town of Hastikuṇḍi by his preceptor Vāsudeva.

v1.c19.s3.t1.13

Mammaṭa

v1.c19.s3.t1.14

Dhavala . . . . . gave shelter to the armies of a king (name

v1.c19.s3.t1.15

| lost) and of the lord of the Gurjaras, when
| Muñjarāja had destroyed Āghāṭa,¹ the pride of
| Medapāṭa ² (V. 10);......afforded protection to
| Mahendra against Durlabharāja (V. 11); gave
| support to Dharaṇīvarāha (V. 12); and abdicated
| in favour of his son Bālaprasāda (V. 19).

v1.c19.s3.t1.16

¹ Mod. Ahad, near the Udaipur station. The Guhilot clan Ahadīyā derives its name from this place.

v1.c19.s3.t1.17

² Mod. Mewar.

v1.c19.s3.t1.18

Bālaprasāda ```

v1.c19.s3.t1.19

The next 6 verses (22-27) are devoted to the praise of Hastikuṇḍi, the capital of Bālaprasāda. Next is mentioned the *Sūri* Śāntibhadra, the pupil of Vāsudeva. Then follows the information that the *goṣṭhī* of Hastikuṇḍi renovated the temple of the first Tīrthaṅkara (Ṛṣabhanātha), which was first built by Vidagdharāja. After its renovation Śāntibhadra in (V) *Saṁvat* 1053 (A.D. 997) installed the image of the Tīrthaṅkara. The inscription was composed by Sūryācārya.³

v1.c19.s3.t1.20

³ First noticed by Kielhorn, *JASB*, 1893, Vol. LXII, Part I, pp. 309-14. Then edited by Pandit Ramkaran, *EI*, Vol. X, pp. 17-24.

v1.c19.s3.t1.21

The inscription supplies some interesting information in connection with the achievements of Dhavala. Muñjarāja has been correctly identified with the Paramāra Vākpati-Muñja (*c.* 974-95 A.D.).⁴ The lord of the Gurjaras mentioned here was most probably the Caulukya Mūlarāja I of Gujrat (*c.* 961-96 A.D.),⁵ while the prince whose name is lost was possibly a Guhila of Medapāṭa. Durlabharāja was identified by Kielhorn with the brother of the Cāhamāna Vigraharāja of the Harṣa inscription dated in V.S. 1030.¹ The same scholar rightly identified Mahendra with the Naddūla Cāhamāna of the same name.² Pandit Ramkaran has suggested the possibility of the identification of Dharaṇīvarāha with the Paramāra king of that name, who is said to have been the ruler of Nav-kot in Marwar.³

v1.c19.s3.t1.22

⁴ *JASB*, 1893, Vol. LXII, Part I, p. 311.

v1.c19.s3.t1.23

⁵ *Ibid.*

v1.c19.s3.t1.24

¹ *Ibid.*

v1.c19.s3.t1.25

² *EI*, Vol. IX, p. 71; also pp. 64 and 67.

v1.c19.s3.t1.26

³ *EI*, Vol. X, p. 19 and fn. 1.

v1.c19.s3.t1.27

The proposed identifications, if accepted, would show the comparative importance of this Rāṣṭrakūṭa family. Their importance was probably in some measure due to the fact that their principality was situated in the region where the frontiers of the Caulukya, the Cāhamāna, and the Paramāra kingdoms met. As incessant struggles went on between these powers, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas could always count on the assistance of one when threatened by another of the three.⁴

v1.c19.s3.t1.28

⁴ Annalla-devī, the wife of the Cāhamāna Alhaṇa of Naddūla (A.D. 1152-61), who traced her descent to the *Rāṣṭrauḍa-vaṁśa* may have belonged to this Hathundi branch. See *EI*, Vol. XI, p. 71, fn. 2.

(b) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Dhanop

v1.c19.s3.t2.1

The existence of this family was made known by the discovery of the *Dhanop stone-inscription of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Cacca*. It was found at Dhanop, 16 miles north of Shahpura, capital of the principality of the same name in Rajputana. It contains 13 lines, opening with *Oṁ namaḥ Śivāya* and a verse invoking Śiva. We are next introduced to a king named Cacca. Then we are given the following genealogy of the princes of this family :—

v1.c19.s3.t2.3

Then we are told that many years after the passing away of these princes, a devotee of Siva named Nagna-bhaṭṭāraka, seeing that the god founded by the above-mentioned kings received no worship, went to king Cacca and said : “ O king, this temple belongs to the princes of your family ”¹ and induced him to renovate it, and it was dedicated to Śiva under the name Dhaṅkeśvara. The inscription was engraved by Rāmadeva. It ends with the date (V) *Saṁvat* 1063.²

v1.c19.s3.t2.4

¹ This shows that Cacca was a Rāṣṭrakūṭa. But we do not know how he was related to the previous family.

v1.c19.s3.t2.5

² Edited by D. R. Bhandarkar, *IA*, 1911, pp. 174-75.

v1.c19.s3.t2.6

That the power of these Rāṣṭrakūṭas probably extended into the region now known as the State of Kotah is shown by the *Shergadh stone-inscription* dated in (V) S. 1074. This, together with two other records dated in (V) S. 1075 and 1084, was incised on a stone which was lying outside the temple of Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa at Shergadh, in the State of Kotah in Rajputana. It records that in V. S. 1074 the Seṭh Narasiṁha and two others made a grant of one *Karṣa* of ghee as unguent for the feet of Bhaṭṭāraka Nagnaka. There can hardly be any doubt that this last person is identical with the Nagna-bhaṭṭāraka of the Dhanop inscription of Cacca.³

v1.c19.s3.t2.7

³ Edited by the same, *ibid*, pp. 175-76. Edited by the same, *ibid*, pp. 181-83.

(c) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas (Raṭhaḍās) of Bithu

v1.c19.s3.t3.1

This branch is known from the *Bithu stone-inscription* of the Sīhā Raṭhaḍā, engraved on a *devḷī* (memorial stone) in Bithu, a village about 14 miles N. W. of Pali, the principal town in the district of the same name in the State of Jodhpur. It contains 7 lines, recording that in (V) S. 1330 the Raṭhaḍā Sīhā, son of Kaṁvara (Kumāra) Srī-Seta, went to the world of gods. ‘ May the bliss of heaven be for Pārvatī, the Solaṅkinī.’⁴

v1.c19.s3.t3.2

Prof. Bhandarkar rightly identified this Sīhā, son of Seta, with Sīyā jī, the son of Setrām, the reported founder of the royal family of Jodhpur. The Rāṭhors of Jodhpur claim descent from the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kanauj (*Kanojīyā-Rāṭhoṛa*).¹ It is therefore very likely that this family was a branch of the line of Lakhaṇapāla, which, we have seen, ruled in Budaun and Kanauj probably as feudatories of the Gāhaḍavālas.² It may well be that after the destruction of this Rāṣṭrakūṭa line in the 13th century a scion of this family, possibly Seta, migrated to Rajputana and became the founder of the modern Rāṭhoṛs. As usual, the bards, mixing facts with fiction, represented him as connected with Kanauj and the famous Gāhaḍavāla prince Jayaccandra.³

v1.c19.s3.t3.3

¹ *AR*, Vol. I, p. 161; Vol. II, p. 824.

v1.c19.s3.t3.4

² See *supra*, pp. 505, 507 and 518.

v1.c19.s3.t3.5

³ Note also the *Bikaner praśasti of Rāya Siṅgha* of V.S. 1650, *JASB*, Vol. XVI (N.S.), pp. 262 ff.; and the Trisinghari inscription of Dūhaḍa, son of Aśvatthāman (Asothama), and grandson of Sīhā, dated in V.S. 1366. See *IA*, 1911, p. 301.

(4) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Bihar

v1.c19.s4.1

In my chapters on the dynasties of Bengal and Bihar and the Gāhaḍavālas, I have already referred to this line of Rāṣṭrakūṭas. In her Sarnath inscription, Kumāra-devī,⁴ the queen of the Gāhaḍavāla Govindacandra (*c.* 1114-1155 A.D.), refers to her maternal grandfather Mahana, the ruler of Aṅga (*Aṅgapa*) and ‘a peerless warrior of the Gauḍa country.’ Mahana is further described as ‘the venerable maternal uncle (*mātula*) of kings’ who had conquered the Chikkora Devarakṣita of Pīṭhī and maintained the glory of Rāmapāla. This led to the identification of Mahana with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Mahana or Mathana of the *Rāma-carita* of Sandhyākara Nandī,⁵ who was the maternal uncle of Rāmapāla (*c.* 1084-1126 A.D.), and materially aided him in establishing his power. The *Rāma-carita* makes it clear that Mathana was a feudatory of Rāmapāla. The names of the following members of this family are supplied by the *Rāma-carita*¹ and the Sarnath inscription:—

v1.c19.s4.2

⁴ *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 319-20. No. 42 of the Gāhaḍavāla Govindacandra; see above, p. 525.

v1.c19.s4.3

⁵ *MASB*, Vol. III, No. 1. See *supra*, Dynastic History of Bengal and Bihar, pp. 338 ff.

v1.c19.s4.4

¹ See in this connection *IHQ*, March, 1929, pp. 35-48.

(5) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kathiawar

v1.c19.s5.1

A *Veraval inscription* dated in V. S. 1442 (A.D. 1384) gives us the name of prince (*Nṛpa*) Bharma of the *Rāṣṭroḍa-vaṁśa*.² Veraval is a port in the State of Junagarh, in Kathiawar, situated in Lat. 20°33′ N. and Long. 70°26′ E. The inscription reveals the existence of Rāṣṭrakūṭa chiefs in Kathiawar even after the Muslim conquest in 1299 A.D., and is chiefly interesting as it supplies the form *Rāṣṭroḍa* which shows the gradual vernacularisation of the word Rāṣṭrakūṭa towards modern Rāṭhoḍa or Rāṭhor.

v1.c19.s5.2

² *Antiquarian Remains of the Bombay Presidency*, p. 185; *EI*, Vol. V, Appendix. Kielhorn's *List of Northern Inscriptions*, No. 1442.

v1.c19.s5.3

I. *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kanauj (c. 1050-1202):

v1.c19.s5.5

II. *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of C.I. and C.P:

v1.c19.s5.6

(a) *The Mānapura Family (c. 650-700 A.D.):

v1.c19.s5.8

(b) *The Betul Family (c. 575-650 A. D.):

v1.c19.s5.10

(*c*) *The Pathari Family* (*c.* 750-875 *A.D.*):

v1.c19.s5.12

| . . . . .
| |

v1.c19.s5.13

Elder brother, ruler of Jejja Lāṭa (*c.* 760 A. D.) | Karkarāja (*c.* 800-815 A.D.)

v1.c19.s5.14

Parabala (*c.* 815-865 A.D.)

v1.c19.s5.15

III. *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Rajputana:*

v1.c19.s5.16

(*a*) *The Hastikuṇḍī Family* (*c.* 900-1000 *A.D.*): Harivarman = Ruci

v1.c19.s5.17

Vidagdha (*c.* 916 A.D.)

v1.c19.s5.18

Mammaṭa (*c.* 939 A.D.)

v1.c19.s5.19

Dhavala (*c.* 960-80 A.D.)

v1.c19.s5.20

Bālaprasāda (*c.* 880-1000 A.D.).

v1.c19.s5.21

(*b*) *The Dhanop Family* (*c.* 950-1010 *A.D.*): Bhallila Dantivarman

v1.c19.s5.22

| . . . . .
| |

v1.c19.s5.23

Buddharāja Govinda : Cacca (A.D. 1006)

v1.c19.s5.24

(*c*) *The Bithu Family* (*c.* 1200-1310 *A.D.*): Seta

v1.c19.s5.25

Sīhā (died 1273 A.D.) — Aśvatthāman

v1.c19.s5.26

Duhaḍa (A.D. 1309)

v1.c19.s5.27

IV. *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Bihar* (*c.* 1050-1150 *A.D.*):

v1.c19.s5.28

[For the list of princes, see *supra*, the genealogical tables in the chapter on the ‘Dynastic History of Bengal and Bihar,’ p. 387.]

v1.c19.s5.29

V. *The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kathiawar:* Bharma (A.D. 1384.)

v1.c19.s5.30

1. *Bombay Gazetteer*, Vol. I, Parts I and II.
2. *Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rājasthan*, ed. by Crooke, Oxford, Vols. I and II.
3. *Rāṣṭrauḍha-vaṁśa*, by Rudra Kavi, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, No. 5.
4. *The Predecessors of the Gāhaḍavālas of Kanauj*, by N. B. Sanyal, *JASB*, 1925, pp. 103-106.
5. *History of the Rāṭhors*, by Pandit Ramkaran, *Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volumes*, Vol. III, Orientalia, Part 2, pp. 255 ff.
6. *The Rastrakutas and the Gaharvals*, by Pandit Bisheshwar Nath Reu, *JRAS*, 1930, January, pp. 111 ff.

v1.c19.s5.32

This image appears to be entirely blank. There is no text or imagery to transcribe.

Linked texts (3)