The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c20.22.2

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.