The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c20.72

v1.c20.72

The end of the reign of Devapāla brings us again to a period of confusion in the chronology of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras. I have already pointed out the difficulty of accepting the identification of the Vināyakapāla of Dhaṅga's Khajuraho inscription (dated in V.S. 1011)² with the Mahīpāla-Vināyakapāla whose known dates range between *Śaka* S. 836 and V.S. 1000. If the former is to be accepted as a separate ruler of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra line of Kanauj, how are we to connect him with that line? The only suggestion so far advanced is based on the custom sometimes found in Indian royal families of naming the grandsons after the grandfather. According to this suggestion, Vināyakapāla of the Khajuraho inscription may have been a son of Mahendrapāla of the Partabgarh inscription.¹ Another difficulty is the identification of the *Mahārājādhirāja* Mahīpāla of the Bayana stone-inscription of Citralekhā, dated in V.S. 1012 (*c.* A.D. 956). This inscription consists of 22 lines of writing, and records the erection of a temple of Viṣṇu by a queen named Citralekhā during the reign of Mahīpāla. Citralekhā was the daughter of one Rājayika and married Maṅgalarāja, who may perhaps be identified with the Kacchapaghāta prince of the same name mentioned in the Gwalior Sāsbahū temple inscription of Mahīpāla, dated in V. S. 1150. The inscription records the grant of two villages to the god Nārāyaṇa. Of the villages mentioned Gograpura has been identified with modern Gogera in tahsil Weir, Nāgapallī with modern Nāvali in tahsil Bayana, and Hāḍhapallī with mod. Hadholi a village in the district of Hindaun in Jaipur state.² Mr. R. D. Banerji's suggestion that the Mahīpāla of this record is a prince of the imperial Pratīhāra line of Kanauj, is certainly plausible, and if accepted will give us a Mahīpāla II. As the Bayana inscription gives no genealogy of Mahīpāla we can only accept the tentative suggestion that he may have been a son of Devapāla and grandson of Mahīpāla I. The situation is further complicated by the discovery of a fragmentary stone-inscription at Osia of the Pratīhāra Vatsarāja, dated in V.S. 1013. The inscription was found incised on a slab built in the wall of the *maṇḍapa* of a Jain temple.³ As an epigraph of Vatsa the father of Nāgabhaṭa II was found at Osia, it may be assumed that the place was still situated within the Gurjara dominions. Was this Vatsa then a Pratīhāra of Kanauj? If so, where are we to place him on the genealogical table? His date of course places him after the Mahīpāla (II?) of the Bayana inscription. The acceptance of this Vatsaraja as a member of the imperial family of Kanauj would then involve us in the supposition that three princes, Vināyakapāla II, Mahīpāla II, and Vatsa II, ruled in rapid succession, during the period V.S. 1011-13. This of course is not impossible, but at the same time the suspicion that the last two rulers may have been representatives of local branches of the family cannot entirely be avoided. The Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire was certainly declining since the capture of Mahodaya by Indra III. The renewal of the invasions under Kṛṣṇa III helped to disintegrate the empire and give rise to local lines, some of whom at least may have been related to the imperial stock. In the present state of our knowledge however it is better to keep an open mind and await the discovery of fresh material before formulating any definite opinion on the point.