The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c20.64

v1.c20.64

It is significant that, unlike the Bengal Asiatic Society's plate of Vināyakapāla, which mentions his predecessor and brother Bhoja, this inscription does not give the name of the reigning king's brother and predecessor Mahendrapāla II. It is not unlikely therefore that the succession of Devapāla was not entirely peaceful, and that he may have omitted to mention the name of one whom he looked upon as a mere usurper. If this was so, then these internal dissensions must have hastened the decline and break-up of the Gurjara dominions. Another important cause that appears to have helped towards the dismemberment of the Gurjara empire was the revival of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas' attacks on Northern India. The Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III, dated in *Śaka* 880 (A.D. 959), refer to his victories in the North.² V. 25 of this inscription, in which he claims to have "conquered Sahasrārjuna," has been rightfully interpreted by Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar as referring to his victories over some Cedi rulers of Northern India. In V. 31, we are told that "all the feudatories from the eastern to the western ocean and from the Himalayas to the island of Siṁhala bowed to him out of fear of severe punishment, though he himself was obedient (*i.e.*, subordinate to his father)." Such vague claims in Indian records of course mean nothing. But V. 30 of the same inscription contains more definite information. It runs as follows : "On hearing of the conquest of all the strongholds in the southern region simply by means of his angry glance, the hope about Kālañjara and Citrakūṭa vanished from the heart of the Gurjara.''¹ These claims of conquests in Northern India are supported by the recent discovery of several inscriptions of Kṛṣṇa III in the Ahmedabad district of Gujarat and the Maihar State in Baghelkhand Agency (C.I.). Two of these were found at the village of Harasola in Ahmedabad, and record grants of land in V.S. 1005 (A.D. 949) by the Paramāra Sīyaka, apparently a feudatory of *Pb.-M.-P.* Akālavarṣa (Kṛṣṇa III), the son of Amoghavarṣa.² The third inscription was discovered on a stone slab at the village of Jura in the State of Maihar. It is written in Kanarese, and "contains the name and the different titles or *birudas* of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Kṛṣṇa III, Akālavarṣa, the son of Amoghavarṣa III, *alias* Baḍḍega.''³ These inscriptions show that some time before the middle of the 10th century Kṛṣṇa III had attacked the Gurjara dominions from the south-west and the south-east, and it would seem that he even succeeded for a time in capturing the famous forts of Citrakūṭa (Chitor) and Kālañjara from the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.⁴ The Deoli and the Karhad plates seem to indicate that most of these victories of Kṛṣṇa occurred during the lifetime of his father, who died some time before 940 A.D.⁵ We have seen that the attack of Indra III proceeded by way of Ujjayinī. The Partabgarh inscription, dated in 945-46 A.D. however shows that the Gurjaras had recovered Malwa. Their possession of the fort of Mandu in that year probably led the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in the reign of Amoghavarṣa III to avoid the Malwa route and attempt a flanking movement from the south-west and the south-east. The inscriptions mentioned above show that their strategy was brilliantly successful. Another interesting fact to be noted in this connection is the mention of the Gurjara dominion in connection with the forts of Chitor and Kālañjara. This shows that the Guhilots and the Candellas were as late as 959 A.D. regarded still as feudatories of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras. It is therefore not difficult to understand why Dhaṅga should mention the name of Vināyakapāla as his overlord in his Khajuraho inscription, dated in 954 A.D. Thus though the Candellas claimed victories over the Gurjaras before 954 A.D. they none the less must have retained in their outward relations an attitude of formal subordination to the effete imperial government at Kanauj.¹