The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c28.29

Language: English

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: