Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2: Volume 2

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2

Language
English

Contents

Volume 2

Front matter

v2.c22.1

This page appears to be entirely blank.

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period), Volume II

v2.c23.1

IN TWO VOLUMES

v2.c23.3

By H. C. RAY, M.A. (Cal.), Ph.D. (Lond.)

v2.c23.4

With a Foreword By L. D. BARNETT, M.A., Litt.D.

v2.c23.5

VOL II

v2.c23.7

*Munshiram Manoharlal* *Publishers Pvt. Ltd.*

v2.c23.8

***Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.*** 54, RANI JHANSI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110055 *Book Shop* : 4416, NAI SARAK, DELHI-110006

v2.c23.9

First Published in 1931-36 by the University of Calcutta ⓒ Smt. Sabita Ray, Calcutta

v2.c23.10

*Thesis approved for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of London*

v2.c23.11

Printed in India by Shri Surjeet K. Gupta at Nu-Tech Photolithographers, Shahdara, Delhi-110032

v2.c23.12

TO THE MEMORY

v2.c23.13

OF

v2.c23.14

MY FATHER

v2.c23.15

PRASANNA KUMAR RAY

Preface

v2.c24.1

I must express my regret that circumstances entirely beyond my control have delayed the issue of this second volume for so long a period. Part of the book was already in print as far back as 1931. But the preoccupation of the University Press in printing certain under-graduate text-books, the difficulty of getting the maps ready and grave family bereavements are some of the reasons which delayed the publication of the volume. I have however utilized the time at my disposal by bringing up to date certain portions in the light of fresh material.

v2.c24.2

With this volume ends the analysis of the political history of the various dynasties that ruled in Northern India during the three or four centuries preceding the establishment of the imperialism of Delhi under the Turks. The beginnings of some of these dynasties however have been traced as far back as the middle of the sixth century A.D. while there were others which retained their vigour till the fourteenth century. The ruling tribes of some areas again were never thoroughly subjugated by the empire builders of Delhi while those of one area at least remained permanently outside their sphere of influence. The power of these dynasties during the period under survey, spread over a vast area extending from the Kishen Ganga in the north to the Godavari in the south and from the borders of Persia in the west to the Patkai hills in the east.

v2.c24.3

Though this volume is a continuation of the work undertaken in the first, it has got an individuality of its own. It deals entirely with Rajput dynasties most of which sprang up in the latter days of the Imperial Pratīhāras. I hope it will be of some use to the sudents of Hindu history in general and to those interested in Rajput history and the beginnings of Islam in India in particular.

v2.c24.4

Lack of space and a natural bias for facts have led me to keep my 'generalizations and idealizations' strictly under control. In this volume also I have accepted the humbler role of a builder of foundations rather than that of an architect, planning and raising an imposing superstructure and magnificent façade of History. I agree with the view that Indian history is at present in a much too primitive condition to attempt safely anything so ambitious. I have therefore consciously followed a method which has perhaps made this work less interesting to a certain class of students of Indian history.

v2.c24.5

As the press and the publishers here ordinarily accept no responsibility in the matter of Indexes of its publications, this heavy and mechanical work again fell on my shoulders. But thanks to the ungrudging assistance of my pupil, Mr. Matindramohan Sen, M.A., this task was very much lightened for me. I have added two new features to this volume. Firstly, I have accepted the suggestion of Prof. Jules Bloch (University of Paris) and prepared an index of ancient and mediaeval geographical names in the twenty maps contained in the two volumes. As the maps are drawn on different scales, I have often given in this index different latitudes and longitudes for the same place; this I admit is rather cumbrous but may be found to be more helpful to the general reader. Secondly, in addition to the Synchronistic Table, I have added a list of dynasties and the territories controlled by them chronologically arranged. As to the spelling of Sanskrit, Persian and modern names, I have followed the same system as in Volume I; the only exception is Brāhman for Brahman. I have again tried to correct any want of uniformity in spelling by providing in the indexes alternative forms of spelling of names.

v2.c24.6

The ten coloured maps of the first volume, imperfect as they were, met with the approval of Indian and foreign scholars. I have tried to effect some improvement in the ten tricolour maps of this volume. But lithography in Calcutta, so far as map-making of a technical nature is concerned, seems to be in a rather crude stage, and though I have tried to make the maps useful to students of Indian Historical Geography, I am not fully satisfied with their production. To Dr. H. C. Raychaudhury (Calcutta University), Mr. S. Dutt (St. Paul's College and Calcutta University), Mr. Chintaharan Chakravarti (Bethune College) and Mr. Matindramohan Sen, I am thankful for a few suggestions and help in correcting proofs of the maps.

v2.c24.7

To the Archaeological Survey of India I am indebted for a photograph of a portion of the Quwwat-ul-Islām Mosque at Delhi. In the twelfth century, Delhi was the great frontier outpost of the Cāhamāna empire. The site of the mosque and its neighbourhood contained fortifications and various buildings and places of worship of the Hindu dynasty. When I was in Delhi in December 1933, I noticed a portion of the ruins of the mosque which still shows clearly, in addition to a group of human forms, a beautiful female figure in *tribhanga* pose on one of the sculptured pillars of a Hindu temple. As the period under survey saw the foundation of Turko-Afghan imperialism on the bed-rock of old Indian civilization, the photograph in a way acts as a symbol for the whole work. I have therefore re-produced it on the jacket and cover of the volume.

v2.c24.8

My task of seeing the volume through the press was much facilitated by the courtesy and consideration of the officers of the Calcutta University Library, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Imperial Library and the University Press. In particular I am thankful to Mr. J. C. Chakravorti (Registrar, Calcutta University), Mr. Johan Van Manen, C.I.E., and Khan Bahadur Hidayat Hossain (General and Jt. Philological Secretaries, Asiatic Society of Bengal), and Mr. A. C. Ghatak (Superintendent, University Press) for help at various stages in the publication of the volume.

v2.c24.9

I have dedicated this volume to the memory of my father. I owe much of whatever success I have attained as a student of history to his advice and inspiration.

v2.c24.10

I conclude with the hope that my readers will find this volume, like its predecessor, of some use at least as "a preparatory clearing ground for more ambitious work."

v2.c24.11

.{l} \textsc{Departments of Ancient Indian History} / \& / \textsc{Sanskrit,} / \textsc{University of Calcutta.} / 18th November, 1935.} \textsc{Hem Chandra Ray}

v2.c24.12

List of Bibliographies ... ... ... xiii Genealogical Tables . . . . . xv List of Maps . . . . . xvii List of Contractions . . . . . xix Chapter XI: Candrātreyas (Candellas) of Jejā-Bhukti (Bundelkhand) ... ... ... 665 Chapter XII: Haihayas of the United and Central Provinces 738 Chapter XIII: Kacchapaghātas (Kachwāhas) of Rajputana and Central India ... ... 821 Chapter XIV: Paramāras (Pāvaras) of Gujarat, Malwa and Rajputana ... ... 837 Chapter XV: Caulukyas (Solaṅkis) of Aṇahilapāṭaka ... 933 Chapter XVI: Cāhamānas (Cauhans) of the Punjab, Rajputana and Gujarat ... ... 1052 Chapter XVII: Tomaras (Tuars) of Delhi ... ... 1145 Chapter XVIII: Guhila-putras (Guhilots) of the Punjab, Rajputana and Kathiawar ... ... 1153 Chapter XIX: Conclusion ... ... ... 1211 Appendix: Dynasties and the territories controlled by them chronologically arranged ... ... 1219 Index . . . . . 1229 Index to maps in Vols. I and II ... ... ... 1290 Corrigenda ... ... ... 1297 Synchronistic Table ... *in pocket at the end of the volume.*

List of Bibliographies

v2.c25.1

| | | | | | PAG |
| Chapter XI | ... | ... | ... | ... | 737 |
| Chapter XII | ... | ... | ... | ... | 820 |
| Chapter XIII | ... | ... | ... | ... | 836 |
| Chapter XIV | ... | ... | ... | ... | 931 |
| Chapter XV | ... | ... | ... | ... | 1049 |
| Chapter XVI | ... | ... | ... | ... | 1142 |
| Chapter XVII | ... | ... | ... | ... | 1152 |
| Chapter XVIII | ... | ... | ... | · ... | 1210 |

v2.c25.2

| | | | | | PAGE |
| Chapter XI | ... | ... | ... | ... | 736 |
| Chapter XII | ... | ... | ... | ... | 816 |
| Chapter XIII | ... | ... | ... | ... | 835 |
| Chapter XIV | ... | ... | ... | ... | 927 |
| Chapter XV | ... | ... | ... | ... | 1047 |
| Chapter XVI | ... | ... | ... | ... | 1136 |
| Chapter XVII | ... | ... | ... | ... | 1151 |
| Chapter XVIII | ... | ... | ... | ..• | 1206 |

List of Maps

v2.c26.1

| No. | For | |
| 1. | Candrātreyas (Candellas) of Jejābhukti (Bundelkhand) | *... before p. 665* |
| 2. | Haihayas of the United and Central Provinces | *... between pp. 738 and 739* |
| 3. | Kacchapaghātas (Kachwāhas) of Rajputana and Central India | *between pp. 820 and 821* |
| 4. | Paramāras (Pavaras) of Gujarat, Malwa and Rajputana | *... between pp. 836 and 837* |
| 5. | Caulukyas (Solaṅkis) of Aṇahilapāṭaka | *... between pp. 932 and 933* |
| 6. | Cāhamānas (Cauhāns) of the Punjab, Rajputana and Gujarat | *... between pp. 1052 and 1053* |
| 7. | Tomaras (Tuars) of Delhi | *... between pp. 1144 and 1145* |
| 8. | Guhila-putras (Guhilots) of the Punjab | *... between pp. 1152 and 1153* |
| 9. | India in the year 977 A.D. (Accession of Sabuk-tigīn at Ghazni) | *... between pp. 1212 and 1213* |
| 10. | India in the year 1206 A.D. (Accession of Quṭbud-Dīn at Delhi) | *... between pp. 1216 and 1217* |

v2.c26.2

This page appears to be entirely blank, with no visible text, page numbers, or markings.

List of Contractions

v2.c27.1

| *AAK* | *Ā'īn-ī-Akbarī* Trans. by Blochmann and Jarrett. |
| *ABOI* | *Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute*, Poona (India). |
| *AGI* | *The Ancient Geography of India* by Alexander Cunningham, 2nd edition. Edited by S. N. Majumdar, Sastri, Calcutta, 1924. |
| *AO* | *Antiquities of Orissa* by Rajendralala Mitra, Calcutta, 1875 and 1880. |
| *AR* | Tod's *Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan*. Edited by William Crooke. |
| *ARB* | *Antiquarian Remains of the Bombay Presidency*. |
| *ASI* | *Archaeological Survey of India*. Annual Report. |
| *ASI, WC* | *Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle*. |
| *ASR* | *Archaeological Survey Reports* by Cunningham. |
| *ASWI* | *Archaeological Survey of Western India*. |
| *BEFEO* | *Bulletin de L'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient*. |
| *BG* | *Bombay Gazetteer*. |
| *BHG* | *History of Gujarat* by Sir Edward Clive Bayley, London, 1886. |
| *BI* | *Prakrit and Sanskrit Inscriptions of Kattywar*; published by the Bhavnagar Archaeological Department, Bhavnagar. |
| *BR* | *Buddhist Record of the Western World* by S. Beal. |
| *Caliphate* | *The Caliphate, its Rise, Decline and Fall* by William Muir. |

v2.c27.2

| *CBMC* | *Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit MSS. in the University Library, Cambridge*, by Bendall, Cambridge, 1883. |
| *CCIM* | *Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. I*, by Vincent A. Smith, Oxford, 1906. |
| *CHI* | *Cambridge History of India.* |
| *CI* | Central India (Province). |
| *CIC* | *Catalogue of Indian Coins (Andhras and Kṣatrapas)* by E. J. Rapson, London, 1908. |
| *CMI* | *Coins of Mediaeval India* by Cunningham. |
| *CP* | Central Provinces of India. |
| *CPMDN* | *Catalogue of Palm-leaf and selected paper MSS. belonging to the Durbar Library, Nepal*, by H. P. Sastri, with a Historical Introduction by Prof. C. Bendall, 1905, Calcutta. |
| *CSBM* | *Catalogue of the Sanskrit MSS. in the British Museum* by C. Bendall, London, 1902. |
| *DHNI* | *Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period)* by H. C. Ray, Calcutta University ; Vol. I, 1931; Vol. II, 1935. |
| *DLI* | *Descriptive List of Inscriptions in C. P. & Berar* by Hiralal, Nagpur, 1916. |
| *EHI* | *Early History of India*, 4th edition, by V. A. Smith. |
| *EI* | *Epigraphia Indica.* |
| *EIA* | *Essays on Indian Antiquities* by James Prinsep. Ed..by Edward Thomas, London, 1858. |
| *Elliot* | *The History of India as told by its own Historian* by Sir H. M. Elliot. |
| *GDI* | *Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Mediaeval India*, by N. Dey, Luzac, 1927. |

v2.c27.3

*GI* *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, Vol. III, *Gupta Inscriptions* by John Faithful Fleet, Calcutta, 1888.

v2.c27.4

*GOS* *Gaekwad Oriental Series*.

v2.c27.5

*HA* *History of Assam* by Sir Edward Gait, 2nd Ed., 1926, Calcutta, Thacker Spink & Co.

v2.c27.6

*HR* *History of Rajputana* by Ojha (Rai Bahadur Pandit G. H.), Ajmer.

v2.c27.7

*IA* *Indian Antiquary*.

v2.c27.8

*IB* *Inscriptions of Bengal*, Vol. III. Edited with Translations and Notes by N. G. Majumdar, Varendra Research Society, Rajshahi, 1929.

v2.c27.9

*IGI* *Imperial Gazetteer of India*.

v2.c27.10

*IHQ* *Indian Historical Quarterly*.

v2.c27.11

*IHT* *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition* by F. E. Pargiter, London, 1922.

v2.c27.12

*JA* *Journal Asiatique*.

v2.c27.13

*JAOS* *Journal of American Oriental Society*.

v2.c27.14

*JASB* *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*.

v2.c27.15

*JBORS* *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society*.

v2.c27.16

*JBRAS* *Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society*.

v2.c27.17

*JBTS* *Journal of the Buddhist Text Society*.

v2.c27.18

*JL* *Journal of the Department of Letters*, University of Calcutta.

v2.c27.19

*Journey* *A Journey in Nepal and Northern India* by C. Bendall, Cambridge University Press, 1886.

v2.c27.20

*JRAS* *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society*, London.

v2.c27.21

*KFB* *Kitāb Futūḥ al-Buldān* of Balādhurī. Trans. by Hitti and Murgotten.

v2.c27.22

*KH* *Kitāb ul-Hind* of al-Bīrūnī.

v2.c27.23

| *KY* | *Kitāb-i-Yamīnī* of ‘Utbī. Translated by Reynolds from the Persian version, London. |
| *KZA* | *Kitāb Zain ul-Akhbār* of Abū Sa‘īd ‘Abd ul-Ḥayy b. ad-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muḥammad Gardīzī (c. 440 A.H.). Ed. by Muḥammad Nazīm, Iranschahr, Berlin, 1928. |
| *LEC* | *Lands of the Eastern Caliphate* by Le Strange, Cambridge University Press. |
| *Life* | *Life of Hiuen Tsiang* by S. Beal. |
| *M* | *Mahārājādhirāja*. |
| *MA* | *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī* of ‘Alī Muḥammad Khān. |
| *MASB* | *Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*. |
| *MASI* | *Memoirs of the Archæological Survey of India*. |
| *MER* | *Madras Epigraphist's Report* by Dr. E. Hultzsch, Nos. 814, 815, Public. 6th August, 1896. |
| *MG* | *Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin* by M. Habib, 1927. |
| *MM* | Mukhaliṅgeśvara Temple at Mukhaliṅgam, Ganjam district (Madras). |
| *NA* | *Notes on Afghanistan* by Raverty. |
| *NC* | *Numismatic Chronicle*. |
| *NKGWG* | *Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen*. |
| *OH* ‘ | *Oxford History of India* by V. A. Smith. |
| *OM* | *Orissa in the Making* by B. C. Mozumdar, 1925. |
| *P* | *Parameśvara*. |
| *PASB* | *Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*. |
| *Pb* | *Paramabhaṭṭāraka*. |
| *PB* | *Pṛthvīrājavijaya*. |
| *PC* | *Prabandhacintāmaṇi* of Merutuṅga Āchārya. Trans. by C. H. Tawney, Calcutta, 1901. |
| *PI* | *Preaching of Islam* by T. W. Arnold. |

v2.c27.24

| *PTOC* | *Proceedings and Transactions of the Oriental Conference* (India). |
| *QJAHS* | *Quarterly Journal of Andhra Historical Society.* |
| *Ras* | Forbes' *Ras Mala*. Edited by Rawlinson, Oxford, 1924. |
| *RGD* | *Records of the Gupta Dynasty* by Edward Thomas, London, 1876. |
| *RMR* | *Rajputana Museum Report.* |
| *Sāhis von Kabul* | *Festgruss an Rudolf von Roth zum Doctor-Jubiläum*, Stuttgart, 1893. *Zur Geschichte der Sāhis von Kabul* by Marc Aurel Stein. |
| *SC* | *Sasanian Coins* by F. D. J. Paruck, Bombay, 1924. |
| *TA* | *Ṭabaqāt-i-Akbarī*, Bibliotheca Indica. Trans. by B. Dey. |
| *TF* | *Ta'rīkh-i-Firishta.* |
| *TFSB* | *Ta'rīkh-i-Fīrūzshāhī* of Baranī. |
| *TFSS* | *Ta'rīkh-i-Fīrūzshāhī* of Shams-i-Sirāj 'Afīf |
| *TH* | *Ta'rīkh-ul-Hind* of al-Bīrūnī. |
| *TK* | *Tuḥfat ul-Kirām* of 'Alī Shīr Qānī'. |
| *TKĀ* | *Al-Ta'rīkh ul-Kāmil* of Ibn ul-Athīr. |
| *TM* | *Ta'rīkh-i-Ma'ṣūmī.* |
| *TN* | *Ṭabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* of Maulānā Minhāj ud-Dīn. Translated by Raverty. |
| *TRAS* | *Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.* |
| *UP* | The United Provinces of India. |
| *WZKM* | *Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes.* Also known as 'Vienna Oriental Journal.' |
| *YC* | *On Yuan Chwang*, by Thomas Watters, Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1904. |
| *ZDMG* | *Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.* |

v2.c27.25

DYNASTIC HISTORY OF NORTHERN INDIA

Chapter XI. Candrātreyas (Candellas) of Jejā-Bhukti (Bundelkhand)

v2.c28.2

There is little doubt that the rise of the Candella power in the south of the Jumna was one of the important contributory causes that hastened the downfall of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire in Northern India. When however we try to trace the first beginnings and growth of the Candella kingdom we meet with considerable difficulties. Tradition records the following account of their rise.

v2.c28.3

Hem-rāj, the *purohit* of Indrajit, the Gaharwar *rājā* of Benares, had a daughter named Hemāvatī. She "was very beautiful, and one day when she went to bathe in the Rāti Tālāb, she was seen and embraced by *Candramā* (the Moon); as he was preparing to return to the skies, Hemāvatī cursed him. 'Why do you curse me?' said Candramā, 'your son will be lord of the earth, and from him will spring a thousand branches.' Hemāvatī enquired: 'How shall my dishonour be effaced when I am without a husband?' 'Fear not,' replied Candramā, 'your son will be born on the bank of the Karṇavatī river; then take him to Khajurāya, and offer him as a gift and perform a sacrifice. In Mahoba (Mahotsavanagara) he will reign, and will become a great king . . . . . On the hill of Kālañjara he will build a fort'..."¹ A copy of *the Mahobā-Khaṇḍ* consulted by Cunningham, gave the date of the coronation of this child, who was named Candra-varmā, as *Saṁvat* 225.¹ The traditions preserved by the family of the Qānungo of Mahoba inform us that Candra-varmā overthrew the Parihārs in Bundelkhand.² The genealogies preserved in the official charters of the Candella princes, however, are ignorant of the existence of this prince. Thus the Khajraho stone inscription of Dhaṅga (V.S. 1011) gives the following account of the origin of the dynasty³:—

v2.c28.4

¹ *ASR*, Vol. II, pp. 445-46.

v2.c28.5

¹ *Ibid.*

v2.c28.6

² *JASB*, 1881, Vol. L, p. 3. The date of this event is given as *Saṁvat* 677.

v2.c28.7

³ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 122 ff. This is the earliest record of the line, as far known, which supplies any information about the origin of the family. There are slight variations in other records. Thus in the Khajraho stone inscription of Kokkala (V. S. 1058) we have: Atri: From his eye the Moon; His son the sage Candrātreya:—In the family of the *Candrātreya-vaṁśajaḥ* princes, Nannuka; see *ibid*, pp. 137 ff. The copper plates usually begin with the praise of *Candrātreya-narendrāṇāṁ vaṁśa* and then give the name of the grandfather of the donor of the grant; see *IA*, XVI, pp. 207 ff. Sometimes the inscription begins with the praise of only the Moon, the progenitor of the *Candrātreya-narendrāṇāṁ vaṁśa*; see *EI*, Vol. XVI, pp. 9 ff. A fragmentary Mahoba inscription, however, begins with the genealogy with "From the beloved of the night there sprang a race beloved by all." The preserved portion does not contain the word Candra or Candrātreya; *ibid*, Vol. I, pp. 217 ff. Generally speaking, the earliest inscriptions refer to the dynasty as *Candrātreya-vaṁśa*. But the Dudahi stone inscriptions of Devalabdhi, a grandson of Yaśovarman, describe the family as *Candrell-ānvaya*, from which no doubt the later form Candella is derived. Kielhorn suspected that the name *Candrātreya* was really a later Sanskritised form of the word *Candrella*. According to him this last word was formed from Candra by the addition of the Prakrit suffix *illa*. The form *Caṁdella* occurs in the Deogarh rock-inscription of Kīrtivarman, *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 237 ff. The form Candella is found in the Benares grant of the Kalacuri Lakṣmī-Karṇa *EI*, Vol. II, p. 306; while the form *Candela* occurs in the Madanpur inscription of Cāhamāna Pṛthvīrāja III, (V.) *Saṁvat* 1239; see *ASR*, Vol. XXI, p. 174. We reserve for discussion the question of the origin of the Candellas in Vol. III of the present work.

v2.c28.8

``` Viśvasṛk Purāṇapuruṣa (The creator of the universe, that

v2.c28.9

| ancient being).

v2.c28.10

Sages Mārīci, Atri, etc.

v2.c28.11

Muni Candrātreya...acquired fierce might by ceaseless

v2.c28.12

| austerities

v2.c28.13

From him princes (bhūbhujām) who had the power to destroy or protect the whole earth.

v2.c28.14

In this family Nṛpa Nannuka

v2.c28.15

Vākpati ______| . . . . .

v2.c28.16

Jayaśakti Vijayaśakti

v2.c28.17

Rāhila

v2.c28.18

Harṣa = Kañcukā

v2.c28.19

Yaśovarman

v2.c28.20

Dhaṅga (V.S. 1011 = A.D. 954) ```

v2.c28.21

It should however be observed that both tradition and inscriptions agree in tracing the descent of the family to the Moon. The fact that the traditional founder of the dynasty is first taken to Khajraho¹ is also consistent with epigraphic and foreign evidence. For the earliest inscriptions of the Candellas come from that place, and the *Kāmil*, one of the oldest compilations of Arab history, connects the dynasty with Kajurāhah (كجوراهه).² Cunningham discovered another agreement between tradition and epigraphic evidence. By counting backwards from 954 A.D., the earliest known date of Dhaṅga, the 6th lineal descendant of Nannuka, and assigning a period of 20 to 25 years for each generation, he fixed upon the first quarter of the 9th century A.D., as the approximate date of Nannuka.³ Then by referring *Saṁvat* 225, one of the traditional dates for the foundation of the Candella dynasty, to the Harṣa era, he found it in perfect agreement with the above date (225+606=831 A.D.).⁴ There is yet another agreement between tradition and epigraphy if we accept the name Candra-varmā as a mere *biruda* of Nannuka. But the statement that the founder of the dynasty supplanted the Parihārs cannot be accepted. From about the time of Nannuka down to the beginning of the 10th century the Gurjara-Pratīhāras were at the height of their power, and it is unlikely that, during this period, the Candellas would succeed in driving them out of the land lying to the south of the Jumna. It is more likely that the Candella Nannuka was at first a feudatory of Nāgabhaṭa II (*c.* 815-33 A.D.) and ruled over a small principality round about Khajraho, the Kharjjuravāhaka of the inscriptions. This agrees with the tradition which places the original home of the Candellas at Maniyagarh in the Chhatarpur State (C. I.). In the Khajraho inscription of Dhaṅga, Nannuka is called *nṛpa* and is described as ' a touchstone to test the worth of the gold of the regal order, who playfully decorated the faces of the women of the quarters with the sandal of his fame,' and whose enemies carried ' his commands on their heads, like a garland.'¹ In another Khajraho inscription of the same king Nannuka is called a *mahīpati* 'whose prowess reminded the gods of Arjuna.'² This is the only information available about the first historical personage in the genealogy of the Candellas. The Indian *praśastikāras* at any rate do not err on the side of moderation and it is extremely impossible that they would have omitted such a tangible historical fact as the defeat of the Parihāras, if that incident really happened in the career of the founder of the dynasty, and attached to his memory such vague generalities which in Indian records mean practically nothing. It is also significant that Nannuka's name is omitted from all the other Candella inscriptions, which are not few. He would have certainly loomed as a more substantial figure in the family tradition if he had really laid the foundation of the sovereignty of the family by violently uprooting another dynasty. The evidence available therefore suggests that his position was that of a petty feudatory ruler. It would even be risky to assume that he 'enjoyed some share of sovereign power' from the mere fact that in the inscriptions of his distant descendants he is designated a *mahīpati* or a *nṛpa*. There is also no evidence to prove the alleged connection of the founder of the dynasty and the *purohita* of the Gāhaḍavālas. In fact epigraphic evidence is against the supposition that Nannuka could even be a contemporary of the early Gāhaḍavālas of Benares (11th century A. D.).¹

v2.c28.22

¹ Sometimes spelt Khajuraho.

v2.c28.23

² *TKA*, Bulak, 1874, Vol. IX, pp. 115-16.

v2.c28.24

³ *ASR*, Vol. II, p. 447.

v2.c28.25

⁴ The other traditional dates for the foundation of the Candella power are 204, 661, and 682. We can of course refer the first of these to the Harṣa era; but the three other dates, 661, 677, and 682 cannot be satisfactorily explained. See *JASB*, Vol. L, pp. 3-6.

v2.c28.26

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 125, V. 10.

v2.c28.27

² *Ibid.*, p. 141, Vs. 14-15.

v2.c28.28

¹ See *ante*, DHNI, Vol. I, pp. 504 ff.

v2.c28.29.1

The next person in the Candella genealogy is Vākpati, the son of Nannuka. His existence is also known from the two inscriptions referred to above. The first informs us that the illustrious Vākpati defeated his enemies in battle and made the Vindhyas his pleasure-mount (*Krīḍā-giri*).² According to the other record, the Kṣitipa Vākpati is said to have excelled by his wisdom and valour (even) the mythical kings Pṛthu and Kakustha.³ From the fact that he is referred to as having made the Vindhyas his pleasure-mount we may perhaps be justified in concluding that Vākpati succeeded in extending to some degree the limits of his small ancestral principality. But in my opinion the persons who really succeeded in establishing the foundation of the prosperity, though not the sovereignty of the family, were his sons Jayaśakti and Vijayaśakti.⁴ Excepting in the two inscriptions mentioned above, these two brothers are generally described in records as the first ancestors of the Candellas. Verse 10 of a fragmentary inscription at Mahoba again tells us that Jejā (Jayaśakti) gave his name to *Jejā-bhukti*, just as Pṛthu did to *Pṛthivī*.⁵ This Jejā-bhukti⁶ is generally accepted as the 'old name of Bundelkhand and the original of the vernacular form Jajāhūtī or Jajāhotī, just as modern Tirhut is derived from Tīra-bhukti.’¹ Cunningham, who first proposed this identification, further identified this name under its vernacular form with the *Chih-chi-t'o* of Yuan Chwang.

v2.c28.29.2

But as the date of Jayaśakti cannot be earlier than about the beginning of the 9th century, and as there is nothing to discredit the epigraphic evidence that he gave his name to the *Bhukti*, we must give up this identification.² Watters may be right when he suggests that the *Chih-chi-t'o* of Yuan Chwang represents modern Chitor and not Jajhoti.³ From the fact that his dominion is called only a *Bhukti* we may infer that Jayaśakti was at best a mere feudatory perhaps of the great Gurjara emperor Bhoja (*c.* 836-88 A.D.). In the inscriptions he is generally praised vaguely for victories over his enemies. Thus in a Khajraho inscription of Dhaṅga we are told that “by the unmeasured prowess” of him and his younger brother “adversaries were destroyed, as woods are burnt by a blazing fire.”⁴ But in another Khajraho inscription of the same king, the younger brother Vijaya is said to have, ‘like Rāma, on his warlike expeditions reached even the southernmost point of India.’⁵ It is not impossible that there may be some historical truth hidden in this reference. But if he really invaded peninsular India he must have done so as the feudatory of some more powerful sovereign.

v2.c28.29.3

For though the brothers are repeatedly referred to in the inscriptions as having added ‘radiance’ to the family of the Candrātreya princes, it is significant that they are seldom given the epithets of sovereign rulers, and are on the contrary often simply called heroes (*vīra*).¹ We may therefore conclude with some probability that Vijayaśakti, who succeeded his elder brother as the head of the family, was still a subordinate chief, possibly of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Bhoja or his son Mahendrapāla (*c.* 893-907 A.D.). The position of Rāhila, Vijayaśakti's son and successor, does not appear to have been different from that of his father. He is mentioned only in two of the Candella inscriptions so far discovered; and in both of them he is merely praised in conventional phrases for his bravery and victories. Thus in the Khajraho inscription of Dhaṅga, the royal *praśasti-kāra* says: "Thinking of whom (Rāhila) the enemies enjoy little sleep at night.

v2.c28.29.4

Who never tired, at the sacrifice of battle, where the terribly wielded sword was the ladle, where the oblation of clarified butter was made with streaming blood, where the twanging of the bow-string was the exclamation of *vaṣaṭ*, (and) at which exasperated warriors marching in order were the priests, successful with his counsels (as with sacred hymns) sacrificed, like beasts, the adversaries in the fire of enmity, made to blaze up high by the wind of his unappeased anger."² In another Khajraho epigraph of the same king Rāhila is given credit for favouring his friends and punishing his enemies.³ It was not till the reigns of his son Harṣa and his grandson Yaśovarman that circumstances favoured the growth of a strong Candella state. The continuous struggle between the Gurjaras and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas which had been raging since the days of Vatsa and Dhruva suddenly took a bad turn for the Gurjara-Pratīhāras sometime between 915-18 A.D.⁴ The Rāṣṭrakūṭas under Indra III captured Ujjayinī and overran Northern India. The imperial city of Kanauj itself was completely devastated. There is some evidence to show that the Deccani kings held some portion of the Gaṅgā-Yamunā *Doāb* even as late as 930 A.D. This severe blow and the strangle-hold on the very heart of the imperial power must have greatly weakened the control of the central government on its provinces. It is true that the Pratīhāra emperor was assisted by a number of his feudatories to recover some of his dominions.

v2.c28.29.5

A fragmentary Candella inscription at Khajraho, for instance, says that either Harṣa or his son Yaśovarman placed Kṣitipāladeva again on the throne¹ (*Punar-yena-śrī-Kṣitipāladeva-nṛpatiḥ siṁhāsane sthā*[*pitaḥ*]). In their official records, also, till the year 954 A.D., in the reign of Dhaṅga, the Candellas actually acknowledged the sovereignty of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras. But there is enough evidence to show that their obedience to the Kanauj power was fast growing nominal. Harṣa, who was possibly reigning when the Rāṣṭrakūta invasion took place, does not appear to have indulged in any open acts of hostility to the imperial power. In a fragmentary stone inscription discovered at Khajraho, he is said to have "conquered many proud enemies" (*dṛptārivṛndaḥ*).² The Khajraho stone inscription of Dhaṅga dated in V.S. 1011 tells us that "that most excellent of rulers was afraid to offend against the law (*dharma*) and anxious to worship the feet of (Viṣṇu), the enemy of Madhu....(He) married a suitable lady of equal caste (*savarṇā*), named Kañcukā, sprung from the Cahamāna family."³ In the Nanyaura plate of the same king, (V.S. 1055) Harṣa is said to have inspired terror by his terrific array of troops, and made tributary to himself other sovereigns.⁴ Dhaṅga's Khajraho inscription of (V.)S.

v2.c28.29.6

1059 tells us that Harṣa protected the whole earth after subduing his adversaries.¹ These references to Harṣa do not contain any historical facts, but in spite of their vague character they seem to indicate that his was a more substantial figure than any of his predecessors. If Kielhorn was right in his assumption that ‘ the relative *yena* in line 10 ’ of the fragmentary Khajraho inscription mentioned above ‘ refers to Harṣadeva,’ the latter's claim to have reinstalled Kṣitipāla, his overlord, on his throne must indicate a considerable degree of power and prestige. He further strengthened his position by forming a matrimonial alliance with the Cāhamānas, who were also gradually breaking away from the empire. Another matrimonial alliance of Harṣa seems to be revealed by the Benares grant of Lakṣmī-Karṇa, the Kalacuri king of Tripurī. If the *Citrakūṭa-bhūpāla* of this inscription to whom Kokkalla claims to have granted ‘ freedom from fear ’ is identified with the Candella Harṣa, then it looks likely that the Candella princess Naṭṭā (*Naṭṭākhyadevī*), the queen of Kokkalla, was a relative of this Candella prince.³ Without openly defying his overlord, Harṣa thus appears to have slowly consolidated his position at home and abroad. It was left to his son Yaśovarman, *alias* Lakṣmavarman, to engage in more ambitious projects for increasing the Candella territory by launching into schemes of foreign conquest and aggrandisement. I have already shown⁴ that some time before 940 A.D.

v2.c28.29.7

the Rāṣṭrakūṭas' attacks on the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire were renewed. The Jura inscription of Kṛṣṇa III, discovered recently in the Maihar state, shows that his claim to have captured Kālañjara sometime before 940 A.D., from the Gurjaras, may not be entirely baseless. That the Gurjaras referred to in the Karhad and Deoli plates in connection with Kālañjara, were the Gurjara-Pratīharas of Kanauj is proved by the Barah copper plate of Bhojadeva, which granted land in *Kālañjara-maṇḍala* of the *Kanyakubja-bhukti*.¹ The Khajraho stone inscription of Dhaṅga, dated in 1011 V.S. (A.D. 954) tells us that Yaśovarman easily conquered the mountain of Kālañjara, ‘the dwelling-place of Śiva.’² As Yaśovarman therefore appears to have been a contemporary of Kṛṣṇa III, it is not unlikely that he may have captured the famous hill-fort, not from the Gurjara-Pratīhāras, as was so long believed, but from the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. The sudden emergence of the Candellas as one of the first-class powers in the country south of the Jumna may therefore be due partially to their success against these ruthless marauders of the Deccan, the predecessors of the Marāthā horsemen of a later period. In the Khajraho inscription, referred to above, the poet gives the following graphic, if somewhat exaggerated, account of the victories and campaigns of Yaśovarman:

v2.c28.30

² *EI*, p. 125, Vs. 11-12.

v2.c28.31

³ *Ibid*, p. 141, Vs. 16-17.

v2.c28.32

⁴ There are variant forms of these two names in the inscriptions. For the former we have: Jejā (*EI*, Vol. I, p. 221, V. 10) and Jejjāka (*EI*, Vol. I, p. 122, line 6); for the latter, we have Vijaya (*EI*, Vol. I, p. 141, V. 18), Vijjā (*EI*, Vol. I, p. 122, line 6) and Vijā (*EI*, Vol. I, p. 221, V. 10).

v2.c28.33

⁵ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 221.

v2.c28.34

⁶ There are variants of this name. A Madanpur stone inscription gives the form *Jejāka-bhukti* (Cunningham, *ASR*, Vol. X, plate XXXII, No. 10, lines 2-3). The same form of the name is found in several other Madanpur records, with the addition of *deśa*, or *maṇḍala*. (See *ibid*, Vol. XXI, p. 174.) The Ratnapur stone inscription of the Kalacuri Jājalladeva, (Cedi) Saṁvat, 866, gives the form *Jejābhuktika*; see *EI*, Vol. I, p. 35, V. 21.

v2.c28.35

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 218; *AGI*, 2nd ed., Calcutta, 1924, p. 551. The form *Jejāhūti* with its capitai Kajurāha occurs in Birūnī's *Indica*, Trans. by Sachau, Trübner, Vol. I, p. 202. Ibn Batuta visited Kajarrā in A. D. 1335. This city must be the same as the Kajurāhah of Bīrūnī and Ibn ul-Athir. Cunningham in his footnote, on p. 551, gives the name of the city visited by Ibn Batuta in the ‘original Persian (a slip for Arabic) characters' as Kajurā. But in the text edited by Defrémery and Sanguinetti (*Voyages d'ibn Batoutah*, Paris 1858, p. 39) it is clearly written as كجرا ; see also *Ibn Batuta*, by Gibb, Routledge, 1229, pp. 226 and 363.

v2.c28.36

² Untenability of this identification of Cunningham was first pointed out to me by Prof. R. C. Majumdar of the University of Dacca.

v2.c28.37

³ *YC*, Vol. II, p. 251.

v2.c28.38

⁴ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 126, V. 15.

v2.c28.39

⁵ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 141-42, V. 20.

v2.c28.40

¹ *Ibid*, IV, p. 157, line 2; Vol. X, p. 47, line 2; Vol. XVI, p. 12, line 3, and p. 274, line 2.

v2.c28.41

² *EI*, Vol. I, p. 181, V. 17, also p. 126. This idea of comparing battles to sacrifices is probably taken from the *Mahābhārata*; see *Baṅgavāsī* (Calcutta) ed., *Udyogaparva*, Chap. 141, Vs. 29-51; see also *JL*, Vol. XIV, 1927, *Notes on War in Ancient India*, p. 1 ff.

v2.c28.42

³ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 242, Vs. 22-28.

v2.c28.43

⁴ See *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 579 ff.

v2.c28.44

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 122, line 10; see also *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 581-82.

v2.c28.45

² *EI*, Vol. I, p. 121, line 7.

v2.c28.46

³ *Ibid*, Vol. I, p. 126, Vv. 20-21.

v2.c28.47

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 202-06, lines 2-3.

v2.c28.48

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 142, Vs. 25-28. This inscription also mentions his wife Kañcūkā, but it does not refer to her lineage; see *ibid*. pp. 142-43, V. 29.

v2.c28.49

² Kielhorn suggested that Harṣa 1st first defeated Kṣitipāladeva and subsequently reinstalled him on his throne. But in view of recent discoveries and the identification of Mahīpāla and Kṣitipāla, it would be better to accept the view that the vanquisher of the Kanauj monarch was the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Indra III and not the Candella chieftain; see *EI*, Vol. I. p. 122.

v2.c28.50

³ *EI*, Vol. II, p. 306, V. 7; also p. 301. The acceptance of the suggested identification would show that this *Citrakūṭa* must be differentiated from the hill of the same name in Rajputana and identified with the hill bearing the same name in Bundelkhand. Cunningham identified a hill ‘situated on the left, or west, bank of the Paisuni river, about 5 miles to the S.W. of Karwi, and 50 miles to the S.E. of Banda,’ with the Citrakūṭa of the *Rāmāyaṇa*; *ASR*, Vol. XXI, pp. 10-13. See also *DHNI*, *infra*, chapter on the Haihayas.

v2.c28.51

⁴ See *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 588 ff.

v2.c28.52

¹ *EI*, Vol. IV, p. 284; *JBRAS*, Vol. XVIII, p. 247; *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 18, line 6.

v2.c28.53

² *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 122 ff., V. 31.

v2.c28.54

“Who was a sword to (cut down) the Gauḍas as if they were pleasure-creepers (*krīḍālatā*), equalled the forces (*bala*) of the Khaśas (and)³ carried off the treasure of the Kośalas, before whom perished the Kāśmīrī warriors (*naśyat-Kāśmīra-vīraḥ*); who weakened the Mithilas (*śithilita-Mithilaḥ*), (and) was as it were a god of death to the Mālavas (*Kālavan Mālavānām*), who

v2.c28.55

³ The settlement of the Khaśas during this period extended in a wide semicircle from Kaṣṭavār in the south-east to the Vitastā valley in the west. The hill states of Rājapurī and Lohara were held by Khaśa families. Stein identified the Khaśas with the ‘modern Khakha tribe, to which most of the petty hill chiefs and gentry in the Vitastā valley below Kaśmīr belong.’ See Stein's Eng. Trans. of the *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, Vol. I, pp. 47-48, footnote on I, 317, and Vol. II, p. 430.

v2.c28.56

brought distress on the shameful Cedis (*Sīdat-sāvadya-Cediḥ*), who was to the Kurus what a storm is to the trees (*Kuru-taruṣu marut*), and a scorching fire to the Gurjaras (*Saṁjvaro Gurjarāṇām*)" (V. 23).

v2.c28.57

"Free from fear, he impetuously defeated in battle the Cedi king whose forces were countless......" (V. 28).

v2.c28.58

"At the conquest of the regions, his soldiers gradually managed to ascend the slopes of the snowy mountains, where plentiful flowers had been gathered by Umā from every tree of paradise, where the troops of horses became unmanageable with fright at the gurgling sound of the torrents of the Ganges......" (V. 30).

v2.c28.59

"He easily conquered the Kālañjara mountain, the dwelling-place of Śiva, which is so high that it impeded the progress of the sun at midday" (V. 31).

v2.c28.60

"The illustrious Lakṣavarman in his conquests of the regions made, equal to Indra, the daughter of Kalinda (Yamunā) and the offspring of Jahnu (Ganges) one after another his pleasure-lakes, encamping the forces of his army on either banks unmolested by any adversaries (and rendering) their waters muddy with the bathing of his furious mighty elephants" (V. 39).¹

v2.c28.61

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 126-28 and 132-34.

v2.c28.62

According to these verses, therefore, Yaśovarman dominated the whole region from the Himalayas to Malwa and from Kashmir to Bengal. As I have already pointed out, much of this is no doubt mere *praśasti*, and poetic exaggeration. Thus the expression *Kośalaḥ Kośalānām* seems rather to convey a desire on the poet's part to show his skill in punning than an historical sense. But there is no inherent impossibility in the assumption, that he really raided a large portion of northern India. His victory over the Cedi king, which is mentioned twice, looks like a genuine fact; and it is likely that one of the earlier Kalacuri princes of Tripurī, possibly Lakṣmaṇarāja or his predecessor Yuvarāja I, was the *Cedirāja* whose 'countless forces,' were defeated by Yaśovarman after a fierce contest. The contemporary Gauḍa king was probably either Rājyapāla or his son Gopāla II. In Kashmir reigned at this period a series of comparatively unimportant princes beginning with Cakravarman (923-37 A.D.), and ending in Parvagupta (949-50 A.D.) while the Khaśa state of Lohara was ruled by one of the predecessors of Siṁharāja (*c.* 950 A.D.), possibly Candurāja. The territories of the Mālavas, Kośalas, and Kurus appear to have been still under the Gurjara rulers of Kanauj, while Mithilā at this period may have been recovered by the Pālas of Bengal and Bihar.¹ If there is any basis of fact in these claims of successful invasions and victories it is clear that he soon became a standing menace to the imperial house at Kanauj. The expression *Saṁjvaro Gurjarāṇāṁ* suggests that he may have even come into violent conflict with his former overlords. But the Khajraho inscription of Dhaṅga dated in V.S. 1011 shows that though practically independent, the Candellas still retained in their official documents the fiction of their subservience to the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.²

v2.c28.63

¹ In the time of Mahendrapāla, the Gurjara-Pratīhāra dominions extended from Śrāvastī in U.P. right up to Paharpur in N. Bengal. See *DHNI*, Vol. I, chapter on the Dynasties of Bengal and Bihar, pp. 569-70. The Asiatic Society’s plate of Vināyakapāla, which was issued from Mahodaya. and grants land in Vārāṇasī-*Viṣaya*, in the Pratiṣṭhāna-bhukti, in V.S. 988, the Rakhetra stone-inscription of the same prince discovered in the Gwalior region dated in V.S. 999-1000, and the Partabgarh stone-inscription of Mahendrapāla (II) dated in V.S. 1003 seem to indicate that the Gurjara-Pratīhāras during the period *c.* 931-46, held a large portion of the irregular quadrilateral formed by Mandu, Gwalior, Kanauj and Benares.

v2.c28.64

² See *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 589.

v2.c28.65

The Khajraho inscription referred to above informs us that Yaśovarman erected a ‘charming splendid home of (Viṣṇu), the enemy of the Daityas, which rivals the peaks of the mountain of snow.’ We are told that the image of Vaikuṇṭha which he set up in this temple was first obtained by ‘the lord of Bhoṭa (*Bhoṭanātha*) from the Kailāsa, and from him Sāhi, the king of Kīra received it as a token of friendship; from him afterwards Herambapāla obtained it for a force of elephants and horses, and (Yaśovarman himself) received it from the *Hayapati* Devapāla, the son of (Herambapāla)¹ The temple mentioned above has been identified by Cunningham with the Vaiṣṇava temple at Khajraho variously known as that of Rāmacandra, Lakṣmaṇa or Caturbhuja.² The credit for building this temple, together with that for excavating a big tank (*taḍāgārṇavam*), is given to Yaśovarman by verses 38 and 39 of another Khajraho inscription of Dhaṅga dated in V.S. 1059.³

v2.c28.66

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 129 and 134, Vs. 42-43. For the identification of Herambapāla and Devapāla, see *DHNI*, Vol. I, chapter on the *Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras*, pp. 571 ff. Bhoṭa during this period indicated Tibet while the *Kīras* must be located somewhere near Kashmir. *The Bṛhatsaṁhitā* (XIV. 29) places them with the Kaśmīras in the N.E.

v2.c28.67

² *ASR*, Vol. II, pp. 425-27. The temple is 85 ft. 4 inches in length and 44 ft. in breadth. The stone-inscription of Dhaṅga which refers to the building of this temple was originally discovered at the base of the Caturbhuja temple, and is now built into the wall inside its entrance porch. *EI*, Vol. I, p. 144.

v2.c28.68

³ *Ibid*, Vol. I, p. 144.

v2.c28.69

Yaśovarman had a son named Dhaṅga by his queen Puppādevī.⁴ The Dudahi stone inscriptions reveal the existence of probably another son of Yaśovarman. These records, six in number, were discovered in a temple of the village of Dudahi in the Lalitpur district of U. P. (Long. 78°27′E., Lat. 24°24′N.). We know from these inscriptions that the temple was erected by the illustrious Devalabdhi belonging to the *Candrellānvaya*, the son of the illustrious Kṛṣṇapa and Āsarvā and the grandson (*naptṛ*) of *Mahārājādhirāja* Yaśovarman.⁵ Cunningham's identification of this Yaśovarman with Candella Yaśovarman of Khajraho has been generally accepted by scholars.⁶

v2.c28.70

⁴ *Ibid*, V. 40. Is this name the Prākṛt form of *Puṣpa-devī* ?

v2.c28.71

⁵ First edited by Cunningham with the photo-zincographs of five of them in *ASR*, Vol. X, pp. 94-95, and plate XXXII, Nos. 1, 2 and 4-6. They were then re-edited by Kielhorn in 1989 in the *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 236-237.

v2.c28.72

⁶ The undated fragmentary Khajraho stone-inscription discovered near the temple of Vāmana may belong to Yaśovarman or his father Harṣa. See *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 121-22; *JRAS*, 1904, p. 654, fn. 1.

v2.c28.73

Yaśovarman was succeeded by Dhaṅga sometimes before V.S. 1011, the earliest known date of the latter's reign. The inscription which carries this date attempts to give us an idea of the extent of Dhaṅga's dominions. We are told that he "playfully acquired by the action of his long and strong arms, as far as Kālañjara and as far as Bhāsvat, situated (?) on the banks of the river of Mālava (*Mālava-nadī*); from here also to the bank of the river Kālindī, and from here also to the frontiers of the Cedi country (*deśa*) and even as far as that mountain called Gopa (*Gopābhidhāna-giri*).'"¹ As contrasted with the vague claims of victories from Kashmir to Bengal and the Himalayas to Malwa in the case of his father, this comparatively modest specification of the boundaries has the appearance of being based on fact. Though his *praśastikāra* tells us that this wide dominion was acquired by Dhaṅga's strong arms alone, he was no doubt greatly aided by the campaigns of his father. The same inscription which mentions these boundaries of his dominions contains in the last line the following statement:—

v2.c28.74

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 129, V. 45. Kielhorn identified *Mālavanadi* with the river *Vetravatī* or Betwa and Bhāsvat with Bhailasvamin, the mod. Bhilsa. Gopagri is certainly Gopādri, identified with mod. Gwalior. Unfortunately no inscriptions of the Candellas have yet been discovered in Gwalior but it is likely that the family of the Kacchapaghāta *Mahārājādhirāja* Vajradāman, for whose reign we have the Gwalior image inscription, dated V.S. 1034 (*JASB*, Vol. XXXI, p. 393), may have been feudatories of the Candellas. The Dubkhund inscription (*EI*, Vol. II, p. 237) dated in V.S. 1145 indicates that the Kacchapaghāta Arjuna was a feudatory of Vidyādhara, the grandson of Dhaṅga.

v2.c28.75.1

" 'While the illustrious Vināyakapāladeva is protecting the earth, the earth is not taken possession of by the enemies, who have been annihilated.'"² This statement undoubtedly shows that up to 954-55 A. D., the Candellas retained in their public documents a formal, if nominal, recognition of the imperial line at Kanauj. But it is significant that the names of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra rulers do not occur again in any Candella document after this date, indicating that after 954-55 Dhaṅga became a sovereign ruler *de facto* and *de jure*. The expression 'as far as Kālañjara' which occurs in the quotation cited above shows that up to the date of the inscription the capital of the Candellas was situated not in that hill-fort but in some other city. That this city was Khajraho is probably indicated by an epigraph of Dhaṅga which is dated "in (V.)S. 1059 at Śrī-Kharjjuravāhaka in the realm of Dhaṅga".¹ This is further supported by the *Kāmil* of Ibn ul-Athīr, which refers to Dhaṅga's grandson as ruler of Kajurāha.² It is also significant that the earliest inscriptions of the Candellas including those of Dhaṅga, came from Khajraho and not from Kālañjara³ or Mahoba. It should be noted however that as early as (V.) S. 1055 Dhaṅga is given the epithet *Kālañjarādhipati*.⁴ This may indicate that Kālañjara was regarded as a sort of second capital of the kingdom.

v2.c28.75.2

But it is more probable that the epithet simply indicates the possession of one of the strongest hill-forts of India,⁵ which in an age ignorant of artillery, made his position almost impregnable. The strategic importance of this hill was well-known in India at this time, and the Kalacuris, the Gurjara-Pratīhāras, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the Candellas tried in succession to retain their hold on its fortifications. The possession of this fortress, as well as that of Gwalior must have consolidated the position of the Candellas in Central India and encouraged them to attempt the systematic conquest of portions of the Ganges valley. Yaśovarman is already said to have encamped his troops on the banks of the Ganges. The Nanyaura plate of Dhaṅga which was issued from Kāśikā (Benares), shows that this was no idle boast, and that in V.S. 1055 the Candellas were certainly on the Ganges.⁶ The possession of Prayāga (Allahabad) by Dhaṅga is probably indicated by the fact that he is reported to have 'entered into beatitude' by abandoning his body in the waters of the Jāhnavī, and the *Kālindī*.¹ It is not unlikely that from these bases Dhaṅga may have penetrated further eastward in the Ganges valley.

v2.c28.75.3

A Khajraho epigraph tells us that the wives of ‘the kings of Kāñcī, Andhra, Rāḍhā, and Aṅga lingered in his prisons.’² Another verse of the same inscription says that ‘he was so powerful that the rulers of Kośala, Kratha,³ Siṁhala and Kuntala humbly listened to his commands.’⁴ It is therefore possible that he may have even successfully raided some portions of peninsular India. In any case there is enough evidence to show that Dhaṅga had become one of the most powerful rulers of Central India during this period. One of the Candella inscriptions goes so far as to say that he, having defeated on the battlefield the *Kānyakubja-narendra*, obtained exalted sovereignty (or empire, *Sāmrājya*).⁵ If true, this statement shows that the hegemony which the rulers of Kanauj so long enjoyed in Northern India was at last taken away from them by the Candellas during the reign of Dhaṅga. But as ‘Utbī in 409 A.H. (1018 A.D.) describes the Kanauj ruler Rājyapāla as ‘the chief of all princes of India,’⁶ we must conclude that the halo of imperialism still lingered over the brow of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras for at least sometime after Dhaṅga’s death. The accepted interpretation of another statement about Dhaṅga also appears to me to be doubtful.

First 137 of 4,249 passages. Read on

Linked texts (40)