The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c20.22

Language: English

v1.c20.22.1

The situation however has been further complicated by the discovery of the name of Vināyakapāla as ‘protecting the earth’ at the end of the Khajuraho inscription of Dhaṅga, dated in 954 A.D. A critical examination of the passage leaves no doubt that the name of Vināyakapāla was mentioned as that of the sovereign ruler. Now if this Vināyakapāla is identified with the Vināyakapāla of the Gurjara inscriptions, the attempt to identify Devapāla of the Khajuraho inscription at once falls to the ground. The identification of the two Vināyakapālas is however difficult on account of the date of the Khajuraho inscription (954 A.D.); for we know from the Partabgarh inscription that Mahendrapāla, the son of Vināyakapāla, was already on the throne in V. S. 1003 (A.D. 945-46). The suggestion that the name of Vināyakapāla occurred in the original record of Yaśovarman some time before 954 A.D. and that after the latter's death the record was set up in his son's reign in 954 A.D. with some verses ‘added at the end to describe the martial exploits of Dhaṅga’ seems to me rather improbable.¹ It is unlikely that in an official document a dead king should be referred to ‘as protecting the earth.’ Thus if we accept the suggestion that the Vināyakapāla of the Khajuraho inscription was a Gurjara prince, we are driven to assume the existence of a second Vināyakapāla who ruled after Mahendrapāla II.

v1.c20.22.2

Another complication has been introduced by the recent discovery of the Bayana ‘Ukha-Mandir’ stone-inscription of *Mahārājādhirāja* Mahīpāla, dated in V. S. 1012 (A.D. 956). The fact that the neighbouring feudatory princes of the locality where the inscription was found acknowledged the sovereignty of the Gurjaras as late as 1016 V. S. (960 A. D.), and the difficulty of identifying this prince with the Pāla or the Paramāra prince of the same name, seem to confirm the suspicion that he may have belonged to the Gurjara-Pratīhāra line of Kanauj. If this is admitted, we shall have to assume the existence of another Mahīpāla after the reign of Vināyakapāla of the Khajuraho inscription mentioned above.² Now in summing up the whole discussion, I beg to point out that once we accept the principle that synonymous names may be identified by identifying Mahīpāla with Kṣitipāla, and further grant the separate existence of the Vināyakapāla of the Khajuraho inscription, there is no really serious objection against the acceptance of the arrangement of succession advocated by Kielhorn and Bhandarkar. It is true that the title *Haya-pati* does not occur among the epithets of the Gurjara princes so far discovered; but at the same time the title “lord of horses” occurs as a title of kings during this period on the records of the princes of northern India.¹ It is therefore likely that Devapāla was a king and not merely a cavalry leader.

v1.c20.22.3

Again, it is clear from the assistance he gave to the Kīra prince that Herambapāla was also most probably a king. It is of course not absolutely impossible that these two princes were separate from the Gurjara princes bearing the same names; but it is improbable that there should be two sets of princes in the same period both in close association with the Candellas and both bearing the same names. If the fact that the dates of Mahīpāla and Vināyakapāla do not overlap be urged against their identification, the same argument may also be applied against the identification of Kṣitipāla and Mahīpāla, for so far there is nothing in their dates derived from their own inscriptions or those calculated from the records of their successors or predecessors to suggest any overlapping. It is possible to suppose for instance that Kṣitipāla like Bhoja II, may have had a brief reign between Mahendrapāla and Mahīpāla or Mahīpāla and Vināyakapāla; or to assume that Kṣitipāla, as the eldest son, first reigned for a brief period and was then ousted by Mahīpāla and the latter by Bhoja, who was in his turn peacefully succeeded by Vināyakapāla.

v1.c20.22.4

Such an assumption of internal dissensions in the family and enmity between Mahīpāla on the one hand and Bhoja and Vināyakapāla on the other, would furnish satisfactory reasons for the omission of Mahīpāla’s name from the records of Vināyakapāla and also explain some of the causes that may have operated to bring about the decline of the Gurjara Pratīhāras, so soon after the death of Mahendrapāla. But as this theory does not satisfactorily explain the absence of the name of Kṣitipāla from the inscription of Vināyakapāla, I would tentatively adhere to the arrangement of Kielhorn and Bhandarkar. According to this theory Mahendrapāla was succeeded some time after A.D. 907-08 by his son Bhoja II. Nothing is known about this prince excepting that he had a short reign and that he must have ceased to rule some time before 914 A.D., the first known date of Mahīpāla. There is reason to think that Mahīpāla during the first part of his reign succeeded in preserving the mighty empire that was handed down to him by his predecessors. Thus Rājaśekhara in the introduction of his *Bālabhārata* or *Pracaṇḍapāṇḍava* describes the victories of Mahīpāla in the following terms: "In that (lineage of Raghu), there was born the glorious Mahīpāladeva, who has bowed down the locks of hair on the tops of the head of the Muralas, who has caused the Mekalas to suppurate; who has driven the Kaliṅgas before him in war; who has spoilt the pastime of (the king who is) the moon of the Keralas;

v1.c20.22.5

who has conquered the Kulūtas; who is a very axe to the Kuntalas, and who by violence has appropriated the fortunes of the Ramaṭhas." In the same passage we are further told that the play was acted before an assembly of guests invited by Mahīpāla, ‘the pearl-jewel of the lineage of Raghu the *Mahārājādhirāja* of *Āryāvarta*.’ Another passage of the same work tells us that the play was performed by the king’s orders at the great city of Mahodaya.¹ The list of Mahīpāla’s conquests given by Rājaśekhara may possibly be exaggerated, after the manner of court poets. But an examination of it does not reveal any unsurmountable obstacles to our acceptance of it as mainly true. Thus a king who ruled over the Karnal district might well wage war with the tribes in the Kangra valley and the neighbouring regions.² Again a prince who ruled over Bundelkhand, Bihar, and Northern Bengal might well have engaged in hostilities with the rulers of the upper Narbada and the lower Mahanadi. Nor does a struggle with Kuntala present any difficulty. The rulers of Kuntala or the Kanarese districts of the Bombay Presidency were certainly the Rāshṭrakūṭas of Mānyakheṭa.

v1.c20.22.6

In describing her lineage, the *nāyikā* in the *Karpūramañjarī* gives the name of the ruler of Kuntala in the Deccan as *Vallabha-rāja*.³ The title *Vallabha-rāja* was assumed by the Rāshṭrakūṭa Dantidurga and the designation Balharī (بلهري) of Mānkīr (مانكير) applied by the Arabs to the Rāshṭrakūṭa sovereigns of the Deccan was only a corruption of this epithet.⁴ The Rāshṭrakūṭas and the Gurjara-Pratīhāras were warring with each other since the days of Dhruva Nirupama and Vatsa, and it is quite likely that the hostilities continued up to the time of Mahīpāla. The Gurjaras were at this time at the height of their power, and it is not at all improbable that Mahīpāla may have even carried on a raid into the heart of his enemies’