[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931) › v1.c19.s1 # The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c19.s1: (1) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kanauj The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c19.s1 - **Language:** English ### (1) The Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Kanauj ### [v1.c19.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.2) ⁴ Jayaccandra of the inscriptions, see \*supra\*, pp. 536-544. ### [v1.c19.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.5) ² \*IA\*, Vol. XII, p. 201, V. 6, \*JRAS\*, 1905, p. 10. ### [v1.c19.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.6) ³ \*JRAS\*, 1905, pp. 10-11. ### [v1.c19.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.7) ⁴ \*EI\*, Vol. I, pp. 61-66. ### [v1.c19.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.8) ⁵ According to Kielhorn, called Vodāmayūtā in the record (lines 1 and 11). ### [v1.c19.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.9) ⁶ Identified by Kielhorn with Budaun. ### [v1.c19.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.10) \`\`\` (1) Candra. ### [v1.c19.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.11) (2) Vigrahapāla. ### [v1.c19.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.12) (3) Bhuvanapāla. ### [v1.c19.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.13) (4) Gopāla . . . . . | . . . . . ### [v1.c19.s1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.14) (5) Tribhubana.¹ (6) Madanapāla. (7) Devapāla. ### [v1.c19.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.15) ¹ Tribhuvanapāla? ### [v1.c19.s1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.16) (8) Bhīmapāla. ### [v1.c19.s1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.17) (9) Sūrapāla.² ### [v1.c19.s1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.18) ² Sūrapāla? ### [v1.c19.s1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.19) (10) Amṛtapāla. ### [v1.c19.s1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.20) (11) Lakhaṇapāla. \`\`\` ### [v1.c19.s1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.23) ³ Popularly known as Anhilwad. Mod. Patan on the Saraswati in N. Gujarat. ### [v1.c19.s1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.25) The inscription was composed by the poet Govindacandra.¹ ### [v1.c19.s1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.26) ¹ Edited by Kielhorn, \*EI\*, Vol. I, pp. 61-66. ### [v1.c19.s1.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.29) ³ See \*supra\*, pp. 505 and 518; inscription No. 10 of Gāhaḍavāla Govindacandra's reign. ### [v1.c19.s1.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1.30) ⁴ \*JASB\*, 1925, pp. 105 ff. ### [v1.c19.s1.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.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. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.ray-1931.v1.c19.s1) · Pramāṇa