Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30: Chapter XIII. The Kacchapaghātas (Kachwāhas) of Rajputana and Central India

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XIII. The Kacchapaghātas (Kachwāhas) of Rajputana and Central India

v2.c30.2

The modern Rajput tribe which is known as Kachwāha claim to be the descendants of Kuśa, son of Rāma, the epic king of North Kośala. According to bardic tradition, after leaving their parental abode, they erected the famous castle of Rohtas on the Son and thence a section of the tribe in company of Raja Nal, 'migrated westward, and founded the kingdom and city of Narwar,' classically styled Naiṣadha, in (*V.*) *S.* 351 (A. D. 295).¹ The inscriptions of the tribe totally ignore this story, which was probably a later fabrication. Their earliest epigraphic records, unlike those of some other tribes of this period, contain no story of the family's mythical origin, but abruptly introduce the founders of the various branches as *Kacchapaghāta-vaṁśa-tilaka*² or *Kacchapaghātānvaya-saraḥ-kamala-mārtaṇḍa*.³ It is moreover impossible to derive the word *Kacchapaghāta* or the modern *Kachwāha* from *Kuśa*. The statement that a section of the tribe settled in Narwar is however supported by the Narwar grant of Vīrasiṁha, which was actually issued from *Nala-pura-mahādurga* in *V. S.* 1177 (A.D. 1120).⁴ Moreover, there are other epigraphic records which show that in the 10th and 11th centuries at least three families of Kacchapaghātas ruled in and around Eastern Rajputana and the region now known as Gwalior Residency. They may be conveniently designated as (1) *The Kacchapaghātas of Gwalior*, (2) *The Kacchapaghātas of Dubkund*, and (3) *The Kachapaghātas of Narwar*.

v2.c30.3

¹ *AR*, Vol. I, pp. 56, 106-07, 161-62; Vol. III, pp. 1328 ff.

v2.c30.4

² *EI*, Vol. II, p. 237, line 10; *IA*, Vol. XV, p. 36, V. 5.

v2.c30.5

³ *JAOS*, Vol. VI, p. 543, lines 3-4 from the top. In one inscription the last person in the pedigree is called *Kacchapāri-kula-bhūṣaṇa*, *IA*, Vol. XV, p. 39, V. 57.

v2.c30.6

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 542, line 2, text.

v2.c30.7

As the area over which they ruled was certainly included within the dominions of the imperial Gurjara-Pratīhāras, we may fairly assume that they were at first feudatories of these rulers of Kanauj. Definite evidence shows that a member of one of these families made himself master of the fort of Gwalior by defeating the ruler of Kanauj. As we have a record of this Kacchapaghāta prince dated in A. D. 977,¹ this king of Kanauj may almost certainly be identified with one of the successors of Mahīpāla I (*c.* 914-43). In the following pages I shall give a short account of the three branches of the Kacchapaghātas mentioned above.

v2.c30.8

¹ *JASB*, Vol. XXXI, p. 393, plate I, No. 6.

(1) The Kacchapaghātas of Gwalior

v2.c30.s1.1

The existence of this branch is known from a number of records, the most important of which is the Sasbahu temple-inscription of Mahīpāla dated in *V. S.* 1150.² According to this inscription, the first prince of this line was Lakṣmaṇa. He is described as *Kacchapaghāta-vaṁśa-tilaka* and *Kṣauṇī-pati* and an ‘object of reverence for all princes.’³ Nothing definite is known about his reign. We are simply told that “Wielding his bow (and) promoting the welfare of his subjects, he unaided, like Pṛthu, made the earth obedient to his will, after he had by force extirpated even mighty princes (as Pṛthu had uprooted the mountains).”⁴ The next prince in this line was his son Vajradāman.⁵ We are told that “When by honest means he had put down the rising valour of the ruler of Gādhinagara, his proclamation-drum, which fulfilled his vow of heroism, resounded in the fort of Gopādri, conquered in battle by his irresistible strong arm.’"¹ Vajradāman has been generally identified with the *Mahārājādhirāja* Vajradāman of a fragmentary Jain *image-inscription of Gwalior* dated in (*V.*) *Saṁ.* 1034 (A.D. 977).² It is difficult to identify exactly the prince of Gādhinagara who was defeated by this Kacchapaghāta and from whom apparently he captured the fort of Gwalior. His date, A.D. 977, however indicates, as I have already suggested, that this ruler of Kanauj must have been one of the weak successors of Mahīpāla I (*c.* 914-43 A.D.), possibly Vijayapāla, for whom we have the date 960 A.D.³ It is likely that Vajradāman at first enjoyed some measure of sovereignty. But the rising power of the Candellas, which in Dhaṅga's reign (*c.* 954-1002 A.D.) reached ‘the mountain called Gopagiri’⁴ seems to indicate that he may have soon after acknowledged the hegemony of his more powerful eastern neighbour. That the title of *Mahārājādhirāja*, in this period, was not inconsistent with feudatory rank, is shown by the Rajor stone-inscription of Mathanadeva dated in V. S. 1016 (A.D. 960).⁵

v2.c30.s1.2

² *IA*, Vol. XV, pp. 33-46.

v2.c30.s1.3

³ *IA*, Vol. XV, pp. 36 and 41, V. 5.

v2.c30.s1.4

⁴ *Ibid.*

v2.c30.s1.5

⁵ See *Catalogue of Indian Coins (Andhras, W. Kṣatrapas, etc.)* by Rapson, London, 1908, *Introduction*, p. cliii. The names of many of the W. Kṣatrapas end in *dāman*. Rapson suggested that *dāman* ‘may well be a Sanskritised form of a Persian word (cf. Spalaga-dama);’ *ibid*, p. cv.

v2.c30.s1.6

¹ *IA*, Vol. XV, pp. 36 and 41, V. 6.

v2.c30.s1.7

² *JASB*, Vol. XXXI, p. 393, plate VI and pp. 399-400. It contains a single line and is incised on the pedestal of the image.

v2.c30.s1.8

³ *EI*, Vol. III, pp. 263 ff.; also my chapter on the *Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj, DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 591.

v2.c30.s1.9

⁴ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 129, V. 45. See also *supra, DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 593, and my chapter on the *Candellas, ibid*, Vol. II, p. 678.

v2.c30.s1.10

⁵ *EI*, Vol. III, pp. 263 ff.; also my chapter on the *Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras, DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 592-93.

v2.c30.s1.11

The next prince⁶ mentioned by the Sasbahu inscription is Maṅgalarāja, who is said to have "scattered his enemies as the thousand-rayed (sun) does the darkness. As he for ever paid worship to the lord (*Īśvara*), so he was worshipped by thousands of great lords.’"⁷ Maṅgalarāja is probably to be identified with the prince of that name who is mentioned in an ‘*Ukha-Mandar’ stone-inscription* at Biana, ‘the chief town of the *tahsīl* of the same name in the Bharatpur State in Rajputana.’ This inscription is incised at the foot of a pillar in the ‘Ukha-Mandar,’ an old Hindu temple, now used by the Muslims as a Masjid. Unfortunately, a portion of the stone being permanently built in below the bottom of the pillar, only ‘the first 27 or so letters of each of the 23 lines of which it consists are visible.’ The script of the record is older than the Biana inscription of *Adhirāja* Vijaya dated in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1100 (*c.* A.D. 1043).¹ The inscription is a Vaiṣṇava *prasasti*, and shows that the temple was ‘originally one of the god Viṣṇu.’ In line 12 it mentions Maṅgalarāja, to whose reign it apparently belongs.²

v2.c30.s1.12

⁶ Tato=‘then came.’

v2.c30.s1.13

⁷ *IA*, Vol. XV, pp. 36 and 41, V. 7.

v2.c30.s1.14

¹ According to Fleet it is ‘probably a century, or perhaps two centuries, older than the inscription of *Adhirāja* Vijaya.’ *IA*, Vol. XIV, p. 9.

v2.c30.s1.15

² The record was first noticed by Carlleyle in *ASR*, Vol. VI, pp. 50 ff. He also gives a description of the temple, *ibid*, pp. 50-51. It was then noticed by Fleet, *IA*, Vol. XIV, pp. 9-10.

v2.c30.s1.16

The next³ Kacchapaghāta ruler was Kīrttirāja. We are told that he conquered in battle the countless hosts of the prince of Mālava. “When that (Mālava prince) had met with defeat, the villagers surrounded their houses with the multitude of spears, which through fear had fallen from the hands (of his soldiers) in every direction.”⁴ As Mahīpāla of the Sasbahu inscription (A.D. 1093) is the fourth in lineal descent from Kīrttirāja, we can approximately assign the latter to the period *c.* 1015-35 A.D. He was thus a contemporary of Maḥmūd of Ghazni (998-1030 A.D.), the Candella Vidyādhara (1019 A.D.), and the Paramāra Bhoja (1021 A.D.). These synchronisms lead us to conclude that the *Mālava-bhūmipa* who was defeated by the Kacchapaghāta prince was probably Bhoja. They also indicate that Kīrttirāja was possibly a feudatory of the Candellas, whose power during this period had reached its height. The Dubkund inscription⁵ shows that Arjuna, the local Kacchapaghāta prince, was a contemporary of the Paramāra Bhoja, and a vassal of Vidyādhara. The synchronisms mentioned above also indicate that it was probably Kīrttirāja who commanded the fort of Gwalior when Maḥmūd besieged it in 1022 A.D. I have already mentioned elsewhere that the reference by Niẓām ud-Dīn to this prince of Gwalior at the time of Maḥmūd's invasion as *hākim* (حاکم), coupled with the statement that the Yamīnī invader reached the fort of Gwalior after invading the territories of 'Nandā,' indicate the subordination of the Gwalior ruler to the prince of Kalinjar.¹ As a Candella inscription tells us that the (Paramāra) Bhoja worshipped Vidyādhara 'full of fear, like a pupil,'² we may infer that Kīrttiraja's success against the powerful Mālava prince was attained not without the moral and material assistance of the mighty Candella king.

v2.c30.s1.17

³ *Tato* = ‘then came.’

v2.c30.s1.18

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XV, pp 36 and 42-43, V. 10.

v2.c30.s1.19

⁵ *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 232 ff. See also *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 689.

v2.c30.s1.20

¹ See *supra*, my chapter on the *Candellas*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 692 fn. 2; also *TA*, Trans. p. 14 and text p. 15. Al-Bīrūnī (*KH*, Vol. I, p. 202) says that between Kajurāha and Kanoj 'there are two of the most famous fortresses in India, Gwāliyār (Gwalior) and Kālanjar.' This occurs in the passage where al-Bīrūnī describes Jajāhuti and its capital Kajurāha. The fort of Gwalior is called 'the pearl of the necklace of Hind' by *Tāj ul-Ma‘āthir*, *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 227.

v2.c30.s1.21

² *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 689 and 831.

v2.c30.s1.22

The only other recorded achievement of Kīrttirāja is his building of 'a wonderful temple of the lord of Pārvatī, which shines like a column of fame' at the town of Siṁhapānīya.³ He was succeeded by his son Mūladeva, also known as Bhuvanapāla and Trailokyamalla.⁴ Nothing definite is known about this prince. But his sudden assumption of two additional names and the statement in the Sasbahu epigraph that 'his body was decorated with the irreproachable marks of a universal sovereign' may indicate his freedom from the hegemony of the Candellas. I have already shown that the period between the reigns of Vidyādhara (1019 A.D.) and Kīrttivarman (1098 A.D.) is one of the darkest chapters in the history of the Candellas.⁵ If our suggestion for Kīrtirāja's date (*c.* 1015-35) be correct, his son's reign must have fallen in *c.* 1035-55 A.D. It is thus likely that Mūladeva, taking advantage of the disastrous defeats of the Candellas by the Kalacuri Lakṣmī-Karṇa, asserted his complete independence.

v2.c30.s1.23

³ *IA*, Vol. XV, pp. 36 and 43, V. 11. This town has not yet been identified.

v2.c30.s1.24

⁴ *Ibid*, pp. 36 and 42, Vs. 12-13; p. 202, V. i.

v2.c30.s1.25

⁵ *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 694 ff.

v2.c30.s1.26

Another interesting point in this reign seems to be raised by the king's name Trailokyamalla. It may not be without significance that these names in *malla* occur in the family of the Cālukyas of Kalyāṇi.¹ In fact, Āhavamalla Someśvara I (A.D. 1044-68), during whose reign his son Vikramāditya is said to have carried on extensive raids in Northern India, had actually the same *malla* name as Mūladeva. At present we have no evidence to form any conclusion; but we may point out that both the Kacchapaghāta and Cāḷukya princes were contemporaries.²

v2.c30.s1.27

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, table facing p. 428.

v2.c30.s1.28

² See *IA*, Vol. XV, p. 42, V. 17, where Mūladeva's grandson is said to have marched to the *southern region*. See also *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 828.

v2.c30.s1.29

A fragmentary Gwalior inscription dated in *V. S.* 1161 (A.D. 1104) gives us the name of one of Mūladeva's officers: Stanzas 11-13 tell us that Manoratha of Mathurā, who belonged to the Kāyastha-*vaṁśa*, served as the 'Secretary' of Bhuvanapāla.³

v2.c30.s1.30

³ *IA*, Vol. XV, p. 202.

v2.c30.s1.31

Mūladeva was succeeded by Devapāla, his son by the queen Devavratā. Devapāla appears to have been also known as Aparājita.⁴ The Sasbahu inscription tells us that this prince 'surpassed Karṇa by his generosity, the son of Pṛthā by his knowledge of the bow, and Dharmarāja by his truthfulness.'⁵ His son was Padmapāla, who was like Māndhātṛ 'the ornament of universal sovereigns.'⁶ He is said to have invaded the various quarters of the globe, and after subduing them, marched to the southernmost point of India.⁷ During his reign he is reported to have built a temple of Hari (Viṣṇu), who was named after him *Padma-nātha*.⁸ Padmapāla when 'still a youth, through the adversity of fortune, obtained a seat on the lap of Saṁkrandana (Indra).'⁹ Then his 'brother' Mahīpāla, also styled Bhuvanaikamalla, son of Sūryapāla, became king at Gopādri.

v2.c30.s1.32

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 202, V. 2.

v2.c30.s1.33

⁵ *Ibid*, Vol. XV, pp. 36 and 42, V. 15.

v2.c30.s1.34

⁶ *Ibid*, V. 16.

v2.c30.s1.35

⁷ *Ibid*, pp. 35-36 and 42, Vs. 16-17.

v2.c30.s1.36

⁸ The temple where the Sasbahu inscription was put up, *ibid*, p. 35.

v2.c30.s1.37

⁹ *Ibid*, pp. 37 and 43, V. 30.

v2.c30.s1.38

The relationship between Mahīpāla and his predecessor is not clear. In some passages his father Sūryapāla is referred to as *nṛpa*.¹ But as he is called a brother of Padmapāla, we may infer that his father Sūryapāla was a son of Mūladeva and uncle of Padmapāla. In that case Mahīpāla was the first cousin of his immediate predecessor.

v2.c30.s1.39

¹ Surya-*nṛpa-nandana*.

v2.c30.s1.40

For the reign of this prince we have the long and interesting *Sasbahu inscription*. This is incised on a slab inside the larger of the two temples, near the middle of the eastern wall of the fortress of Gwalior, which the people call *Sās bahū kā dehrā*. It contains 42 lines of writing and 112 Sanskrit verses. It opens with ‘*Om namaḥ Padmanāthāya*’ and 4 verses invoking Aniruddha, the lord of Uṣā. Then comes the genealogy of the Kacchapaghātas from Lakṣmaṇa down to Mahīpāla. Next follow verses praising the last in fulsome terms familiar to the Indian *praśastikāras*. The main fact recorded is that Mahīpāla soon after his coronation promised to complete the half-finished temple of Hari which was begun by his predecessors, and kept his vow (V. 70). A detailed list of the charitable institutions connected with the temple, the portions of his revenue devoted by him to the erection of the temple buildings, the idols that he gave to the shrine, the ornaments he presented to them, the arrangements he made and the implements he furnished for their worship, are fully stated in verses 71-102. V. 75 tells us that the income of the village of Pāṣāṇapallī was divided into 30 shares, of which a few were allotted to the god, and by far the greater number to Brāhmans. The letters of the inscription were written by Yaśodeva Digambarārka, ‘a poet in all languages,’ and engraved by the *Śilpis* Padma, Māhula, and Siṁharāja. *The praśasti* was composed by Maṇikaṇṭha by order of the king in (V.S.) 1150 (A.D. 1093), when the wise Gaura was serving as his (minister).²

v2.c30.s1.41

² First edited by R. L. Mitra, *JASB*, Vol. XXXI, pp. 411-18; errors and omissions of this edition pointed out by Cunningham, *ASR*, Vol. II, p. 357 ff. Finally edited by Kielhorn, *IA*, Vol. XV, pp. 33-46.

v2.c30.s1.42

Nothing more definite is known about Mahīpāla's reign. The only noteworthy feature about him is his name Bhuvanaikamalla, which was also the *biruda* of Someśvara II (1069-76 A.D.), the son of the Cālukya Someśvara I (1044-68 A.D.).¹ According to Dr. Barnett ‘the two Cālukya *birudas* in this family strongly suggests alliance’ between the rulers of Gwalior and the Deccan. The date of Mahīpāla's death is approximately settled by a fragmentary inscription discovered in the fortress of Gwalior. This record mentions the Kacchapaghāta princes from Bhuvanapāla to Mahīpāla, who is referred to as the *adhipati* of Gopālikera, probably the original form and the immediate source of the modern name Gwalior. Stanzas 7-9 seem to refer to the death of Mahīpāla, and must have recorded the name of his successor; but unfortunately the preserved portion does not contain this name. The inscription appears to have recorded the setting up of a *liṅga* when 1161 years had elapsed from the reign of Vikramārka (A.D. 1104). The record was composed by the *Nigrantha-nātha* Yaśodeva.² It is thus clear that Mahīpāla was dead some time before 1104.

v2.c30.s1.43

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, table facing p. 428.

v2.c30.s1.44

² First edited by R. L. Mitra, *JASB*, Vol. XXXI, pp. 402 ff., p. 406. Re-edited by Hultzsch, *IA*, Vol. XV, pp. 201-2.

v2.c30.s1.45

According to Rajput tradition, the last Kachwāha king of Gwālior was Tej Karan, otherwise known as Dulha Rai (the bridegroom prince), who left his capital about 1128 A.D. “ There are different stories as to the cause of his departure. Some say that he was expelled by his uncle, and others that he left in order to marry Maroni, the daughter of the Bargūjar Rajput chief of Daosa, leaving Gwalior in charge of his sister's son, who was either a Parihār or a Paramāra Rajput, and who repaid the confidence thus placed in him by usurping the principality. Both accounts, however, agree that Dulha Rai received from his father-in-law (who had no sons) the district of Daosa; and the Kachwāha dynasty in Eastern Rajputana may be said to date from about 1128, with the town of Daosa as its first capital.........About 1150 A.D., one of Dulha Rai’s successors wrested Amber from the Susāwat Mīnās and made it his capital……Pajūn, fourth (or, as some say, fifth) in descent from Dulha Rai, is said to have married the sister of Pṛthwī Raj Chauhān, the last Hindu king of Delhi, and was killed with the latter in 1192 in a battle with Muhammad Ghori.”¹

v2.c30.s1.46

¹ *IGI*, Vol. XIII, pp. 384-85; *ASR*, Vol. II, pp. 370 ff. Parmāl Deo (Paramardideva) according to some chroniclers, was the nephew of Tej Karan, who founded the Parihār dynasty of Gwalior, ‘which ruled for 103 years, until the capture of the fortress by Iltutmish in A.D. 1232, from Sārang Deo, the 7th and the last prince of the line. According to the *Tāj ul-Ma'āthir*, Rāi Solankh Pāl was the ruler of Gwalior who submitted to Quṭb ud-Dīn in 592 H. (A. D. 1196). Cunningham identifies him with the Parihār Lohang Deo of the bards. See *Elliot*, Vol. II, pp. 227-28, and *ASR*, Vol. II, pp. 378-79, and fn. on p. 379. For a list of Parihār kings of Gwalior from the chronicles of the bards, see *ibid*, p. 378.

(2) The Kacchapaghātas of Dubkund

v2.c30.s2.1

The existence of this branch is known mainly from one record, the Dubkund inscription of Vikramasiṁha dated in *V. S.* 1145 (A.D. 1088).² The genealogical portion of this record introduces the first two names of this line as follows:

v2.c30.s2.2

² *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 232-40.

v2.c30.s2.3

“There was an ornament of the Kacchapaghāta family, and a son of the illustrious Yuvarāja, who was white with fame that spread abroad in the three worlds, the illustrious prince (*bhūpati*) Arjuna, a leader of a formidable army of unparalleled splendour, a prince whom even the ocean did not equal in depth, and a bowman who by his skill in archery had completely vanquished the earth.

v2.c30.s2.4

Having, anxious to serve the illustrious Vidyādhara-deva (*Vidyādharadeva-kārya-nirataḥ*), fiercely slain in a great battle the illustrious Rājyapāla, with many showers of arrows that pierced his neckbones, he unceasingly filled all the three worlds with his imperishable fame, brilliant like pearl strings and like the orb of the moon and the foam of the sea.”³

v2.c30.s2.5

³ *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 233 and 237, lines 10-13.

v2.c30.s2.6

The identification of Rājyapāla and Vidyādhara of this passage with the Gurjara-Pratīhāra (A.D. 1018) and Candella (A.D. 1019) princes of the same name is generally accepted.¹ It is clear that the Kacchapaghāta Arjuna was a feudatory of Vidyādhara, described by Ibn ul-Athīr as the most powerful Indian prince of his time. I have already referred to the Candella inscription which extends the limit of the dominions of Dhaṅga (*c.* 954-1002 A.D.) in the west to the hill of Gwalior.² It seems likely that the Dubkund branch first grew into importance in the service of the great Candella Vidyādhara. The fact that the family *praśastikāra* failed to give Yuvarāja any other honorific than *Śrī* is probably a sufficient indication that he was a man of no importance. The fame and prestige acquired by Arjuna as a successful military leader, specially his destruction of Rājyapāla, must have laid the foundations of his family's fortunes. As he is called *bhūpati*, he may have even carved out a small principality round about the present Dubkund (Long. 77° 5½' E., Lat. 25° 43½' N.) on the river Kunu.

v2.c30.s2.7

¹ See my chapters on the *Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras*, and the *Candellas*. *DHNI*, Vol. , pp. 603 ff.; Vol. II, pp. 689.

v2.c30.s2.8

² *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 593; Vol. II, pp. 677-78.

v2.c30.s2.9

Arjuna was succeeded by his son Abhimanyu, of whom the Dubkund inscription gives the following description:

v2.c30.s2.10

"Having powerfully vanquished in battle even the victorious, (he) valued other princes as lightly as a straw.

Since the highly intelligent king, the illustrious Bhoja, has widely celebrated the skill which he showed in his marvellous management of horses and chariots, and in the use of powerful weapons, what sage in the three worlds would be able to describe the qualities of this prince, who put to flight haughty adversaries by the fear inspired by the mere sight of his umbrella?"³

v2.c30.s2.11

³ *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 233 and 237-38.

v2.c30.s2.12

The Bhoja mentioned in the above passage is generally identified with the Paramāra of that name (*c* 1010-55 A.D.). It is however difficult to know what relation existed between the Paramāra prince and Abhimanyu. It is wellknown that the relations between the Candellas and the Paramāras were not very friendly during this period. A Candella inscription describes Bhoja as worshipping Vidyādhara 'full of fear like a pupil.'¹ We know for certain that Vidyādhara died some time before 1051 A.D., the only known date of his grandson Devavarman.² As the earliest known date of Bhoja's successor is 1055 A.D.³ it is probable that Bhoja survived Vidyādhara at least by some years. It is therefore possible that, taking advantage of the weakness of Vidyādhara's successors, Bhoja may have extended his influence in the north up to Dubkund; and the statement of the *praśastikāra* possibly contains a veiled reference to Abhimanyu's subservience to the great Paramāra.

v2.c30.s2.13

¹ *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 219 and 222, V. 22; see also *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 689.

v2.c30.s2.14

² *IA*, Vol. XVI, pp. 201-02 and 204-07; see also *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 694-95.

v2.c30.s2.15

³ *EI*, Vol. III, pp. 48 ff.

v2.c30.s2.16

Abhimanyu was succeeded by his son Vijayapāla. Nothing definite is recorded of him in the Dubkund inscription. Some evidence of his military success may however be gathered if we accept his identification⁴ with the *Adhirāja* Vijaya of the *Biana stone-inscription*. This record was discovered on a pilaster of a Jaina temple, now used by Muslims as a mosque, in the town of Biana (Lat. 26° 55′ N., Long. 77° 21′ E.), on the river Gambhir, in the State of Bharatpur in Rajputana. It contains 18 lines, opening with *Oṁ oṁ namaḥ Siddhebhyaḥ*. It then records that in the kingdom of king *Adhirāja* Vijaya (line 5), at the city of Śrīpathā,⁵ there was a Jain teacher (*Sūri*) named Maheśvara, a leader of the Śvetāmbaras belonging to the Kāmyaka-*gaccha* (or sect), who occupied the seat of Viṣṇu Sūri. In lines 6-11, it records that Maheśvara Sūri died when the (*V.*) year one thousand one hundred was drawing to its close. In lines 17-18 we are told that the *praśasti* was incised by the *Sādhu* Sarvadeva in *V. Saṁ.* 1100 (A.D. 1043).¹

v2.c30.s2.17

⁴ *EI*, Vol. II, p. 235.

v2.c30.s2.18

⁵ According to Fleet the ancient name of Biana, *IA*, Vol. XIV, p. 10.

v2.c30.s2.19

¹ First noticed by Carlleyle, *ASR*, Vol. VI, p. 52, Plate VI. Then edited by Fleet, *IA*, Vol. XIV, pp. 8-10.

v2.c30.s2.20

The acceptance of this identification, first suggested by Kielhorn, would indicate that the Biana region was conquered by this branch some time before 1044 A.D. from the Gwalior branch, one of whose inscriptions, dated in the reign of Maṅgalarāja (*c.* 995-1015 A.D.), was discovered in the 'Ukha Mandar' at Biana.² Vijayapāla was succeeded by his son Vikramasiṁha, for whose reign we have the *Dubkund stone inscription* dated in *V.S.* 1145. It was discovered in the ruins of a temple at Dubkund in a dense forest on the left bank of the river Kunu, 76 miles to the S. W. of Gwalior. It contains 61 lines of writing, opening with *Oṁ oṁ namo Vītarāgāya* and 6 verses invoking the Jaina *Tīrthakāras* Ṛṣabha-svāmin, Śāntinātha, Candraprabha, the Jina (Mahāvīra), the sage Gotama, and the goddess of Scripture (*Śrutadevatā*) 'famous in the world under the name of *Paṅkajavāsinī*.' Then follows the genealogy of the Kacchapaghātas from Yuvarāja to prince Vikramasiṁha. The third part of the record gives the genealogy of Ṛṣi and Dāhaḍa, two Jain traders, on whom Vikramasiṁha had conferred the rank of *Śreṣṭhins* in the town Caḍobha.³ The *Śreṣṭhin* Jāsūka, their grandfather, 'is described as the head of a family or guild of merchants which had come from Jāyasapura.' Lines 39-48 contain an account of some Jain sages belonging to the Lāṭavāgaṭa-*gaṇa*, the last of whom, Vijayakīrti, not only composed this inscription, but also induced the people to build the temple at which the inscription was afterwards engraved. One of these sages, the *guru* Śāntiṣeṇa, father of Vijayakīrti, is said to have held a *sabhā* before the king Bhojadeva and defeated hundreds of disputants who had assailed Ambarasena and other learned men. The prose passage, commencing in line 54, records that the *Mahārājādhirāja* Vikramasiṁha “for the building of the temple and for keeping it in good repair, as well as for purposes of worship, assigned (a tax of) one *Vaṁśopaka* on each *goṇī* (of grain?), and gave a piece of land in the village of Mahācakra, capable of being sown with four *goṇīs* of wheat, and a garden with a well to the east of Rajakadraha; and that he moreover provided a certain amount of oil for lamps and for anointing the bodies of holy men.” The *praśasti* was written on stone by Udayarāja, and engraved by the *Śilākūṭa* Tilhaṇa. The date (*V.*) *Saṁvat* 1145 (A.D. 1088) comes in the last line.¹

v2.c30.s2.21

² *IA*, Vol. XIV, pp. 9-10; see *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 823-24.

v2.c30.s2.22

³ Identified by Kielhorn with mod. Dubkund, *EI*, Vol. II, p. 236.

v2.c30.s2.23

¹ A small photolithograph of the record was given by Cunningham in *ASR*, Vol. XX, Plates XXI and XXII. Kielhorn edited it in *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 232-40.

v2.c30.s2.24

Vikramasiṁha is the last known prince of this branch. The details of the political incidents of his reign and those of his possible successors are at present unknown.

(3) The Kacchapaghātas of Narwar

v2.c30.s3.1

The existence of this line is known from the *Narwar grant* of Vīrasiṁha, dated in *V.S.* 1177. This inscription opens with *Oṁ namo Nārāyaṇāya* and then in the introductory portion gives the following genealogy of the donor:

v2.c30.s3.2

In the *Kacchapaghāta* lineage
1. *M. P.*…… ..Gaganasimha-deva-*pādānudhyāta*
2. *Prabala-Pb.-M.-P.*..Saradasimha-deva ,,
3. *Pb.-P.-Parama-Vaiṣṇava-Parama-brahmaṇyo* Vīrasiṁha-deva.

v2.c30.s3.3

The inscription was issued in the (*V.*) *Saṁvat* 1177 (A.D. 1120) from the Nala-pura² *mahādurga*. It records the grant of the village of Babāḍa to the Brāhman Govinda and others (names given). The grant was written by the *Paṇḍita* Salakṣaṇa. It ends with *M. Śrīmad-Vīrasiṁhasya vijayinaḥ svahastaḥ*.³

v2.c30.s3.4

² Mod. Narwar, on the bank of the Sindh in the Gwalior Residency.

v2.c30.s3.5

³ Edited by F. E. Hall, *JAOS*, Vol. VI, pp. 542-47. The find-spot of the grant is not mentioned. The epithets of No. 3 are taken from lines 2-3 on p. 542.

v2.c30.s3.6

Of all the three Kacchapaghāta families, it is only this branch which assumes imperial titles. As we have the date A.D. 1120 for the third of this line, we may with probability assign the three princes to the period *c.* 1075-1125 A.D. It is not unlikely that, taking advantage of the weakness of the three neighbouring dynasties, *viz.*, the Candellas of Jejā-bhukti, the Kalachuris of Ḍāhala, and the Paramāras of Mālava, this branch may have established a sovereign power in the valley of Sindh. Nothing is however known about the political incidents of the reigns of these Kacchapaghātas or any of their possible successors.¹

v2.c30.s3.7

¹ On the subsequent history of Nala-pura see : (1) Sarway inscription of Gaṇapati, V.S. 1348 (A.D. 1292), *IA*, Vol. XXII, p. 82. (2) *ASR*, Vol. II, pp. 313 ff. Cunningham thought that Tejkaran, the last Kacchwāha king of the Gwalior region, was a son of Virasiṁha of Narwar (*ibid*, pp. 313-14). According to him, Narwar then fell into the hands of the Parihāras of Gwalior. The last Parihār prince, after the capture of Gwalior by Iltutmish in 1232 A.D., took shelter in Narwar. The Parihārs, according to Cunningham, were dispossessed by Malayavarman, for whom we have the dates from A.D. 1223-1233. He was probably succeeded or ousted by Cāhaḍa (A.D. 1246-54), the ' Jahir Deo ' of Firishta, who submitted to Sultan Nāṣir ud-Dīn of Delhi in A.D. 1250. (*TF*, Brigg, Trans., Vol. I, p. 239.) The dates of his son Āsalla on his coins range from A D. 1254 to 1279. A Narwar fort inscription dated in A. D. 1298, gives the names of Gopāla and Gaṇapati, the son and grandson of Āsalla. As no coins of these two last princes have yet been found, it is likely that they were feudatories of the Khaljī rulers of Delhi. The tribal name of this family was probably *Cāhamāna*, see *infra*, chapter on the Cāhamānas (of Ranastambhapura).

v2.c30.s3.8

(1) *The Gwalior Branch* (*c.* 950-1100 A.D.) :

v2.c30.s3.9

``` Lakṣmaṇa (c. 950-75).

v2.c30.s3.10

Vajradāman (c. 975-95).

v2.c30.s3.11

Maṅgalarāja (c. 995-1015).

v2.c30.s3.12

Kīrttirāja (c. 1015-35).

v2.c30.s3.13

Mūladeva, alias Bhuvanapāla and Trailokyamalla

v2.c30.s3.14

| (c. 1035-55).

v2.c30.s3.15

= Devavratā.

v2.c30.s3.16

Devapāla (c. 1055-75).

v2.c30.s3.17

Padmapāla (c. 1075-80).

v2.c30.s3.18

Mahīpāla, alias Bhuvanaikamalla (c. 1080-1100). ```

v2.c30.s3.19

(2) *The Dubkund Branch* (*c.* *1000-1100 A.D.*)

v2.c30.s3.20

``` Yuvarāja (c. 1000).

v2.c30.s3.21

Arjuna (c. 1015-35 A.D.).

v2.c30.s3.22

Abhimanyu (1035-44 A.D.).

v2.c30.s3.23

Vijayapāla (c. 1044-70).

v2.c30.s3.24

Vikramasiṁha (1070-1100). ```

v2.c30.s3.25

(3) *The Narwar Branch* (*c.* *1075-1125 Ạ.D.*)

v2.c30.s3.26

``` Gaganasiṁha (c. 1075-1090).

v2.c30.s3.27

Śaradasiṁha (c. 1090-1105). = Lakṣmīdevī.

v2.c30.s3.28

Vīrasiṁha (c. 1105-1125). ```

v2.c30.s3.29

1. *Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan*, Ed. by Crooke, Oxford.

v2.c30.s3.30

2. *Archaeological Survey Reports of Cunningham*, Vol. II.

v2.c30.s3.31

3. *Tabaqāt-i-Akbarī* of Niẓām ud-Dīn.

v2.c30.s3.32

⁴ *Imperial Gazetteer*, Vol. XIII, New Edition, 1908.

v2.c30.s3.33

⁵ *Ta'rīkh-i-Firishta*, translated by Brigg, Vol. I.

v2.c30.s3.34

⁶ 'Vestiges of the Kings of Gwalior' by R. L. Mitra, *JASB*, 1862, pp. 391-424.

v2.c30.s3.35

¹ In inscriptions the name is sometimes spelt *Pramāra*, see *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 10 ff; also *Annual Report, Hyderabad Archaeological Survey*, 1337 F. (1927-28 A.C.), pp. 23-24.

v2.c30.s3.36.1

pursued them across the ‘unfathomable Yamunā’ and ‘completely uprooted’ their imperial city. In this unceasing struggle both the Northern and the Deccani powers realised the strategic importance of Gujarat and Malwa. These two areas, together with portions of Rajputana, had been the chief strongholds of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra power from the 6th and 7th centuries A.D. The three principalities of Mandor, Broach and Ujjayinī had withstood the vicissitudes of war and peace for a long time, till at last the rulers of the last seized the imperial crown of Northern India. But this success and the subsequent transference of their capital to Kanauj did not make the Gurjara-Pratīhāras forgetful of the importance of Gujarat and Malwa. The Haddala grants of Mahīpāla and the Partabgarh inscription of Mahendrapāla II seem to show that they tried to maintain their hold over the provinces till about the first half of the 10th century.¹ I have tried to demonstrate elsewhere,² that the Deccani powers from the time of the Sātavāhanas onwards always realised the strategic importance of Gujarat. As soon as Dantidurga (A.D. 754) overthrew the Cālukyas of Badami, he seems to have invaded Southern and Central Gujarat and established Kakkarāja (747 A.D.), possibly his paternal cousin’s son, in the Surat region as his feudatory.

v2.c30.s3.36.2

It would seem from the proximity of the dates of the last Broach Gurjara and Kakka that Lāṭa, roughly the region between the Mahi and the Narbada, was conquered by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas from Jayabhaṭa III (*c.* 706-36 A.D.).³ But the Hansot plates of the Cāhamāna Bhartṛvaḍḍha II, dated in V. S. 813 (*c.* 756 A.D.), shows that the Gurjara Jayabhaṭa III must have been followed at Broach by this Cāhamāna feudatory of Gurjara-Pratīhāra Nāgabhata I.⁴ It was probably from Bhartṛvaḍḍha II or one of his successors that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas conquered Lāṭa. In the time of Nirupama-Dhruva Lāṭa appears to have been placed in charge of his distinguished son Govinda III. The latter after his accession to the throne made extensive raids into the Pratīhāra dominions in Northern India, and then appointed his younger brother Indra-rāja as his viceroy in the Lāṭeśvara-*maṇḍala*. The grants of Indra's successors show that they not only held the territory between the Tapti and Mahi, but that their power also sometimes extended from the river Ambika to the Sabarmati. Many of their grants were made from places in the modern Kaira district. The unfortunate attempt of Dhruva I (*c.* 835-67), the grandson of Indra, to shake off the yoke of Malkhed, which involved the two branches in civil war, appears to have served as a check on the further expansion of Rāṣṭrakūṭa power on this frontier for more than half a century.

v2.c30.s3.36.3

In the reign of Akālavarṣa Kṛṣṇa II (*c.* 888-912 A.D.) the main line of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas seems to have re-established their control over Southern Gujarat. The Karda grant of Amoghavarṣa Kakka II informs us that Kṛṣṇa II's enemies, frightened by his exploits, abandoned Kheṭaka (mod. Kaira) ‘with its *maṇḍala* and its forepart,’ *i.e.*, the surrounding territory.¹ The identity of one of the chief enemies to which the Karda grant refers seems to be established by the Navsari plates of Indra III, ‘which mention his grandfather Kṛṣṇa fighting with the roaring Gurjara’ (*garjad-Gūrjara*). It is likely that this Gurjara power is to be identified not with the Lāṭa Rāṣṭrakūṭas, as Bhagwanlal Indraji suggests, but with the mighty Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire, which now extended from the Kathiawar peninsula to Northern Bengal. It is also possible that the attempt of the Lāṭa Rāṣṭrakūṭas to throw off the yoke of their kinsmen at Malkhed may have been undertaken with the active support of the northern Empire. But unfortunately for the Pratīhāras, the death of Mahendrapāla almost synchronised with the accession of Indra III, one of the most successful military leaders amongst the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings. Soon after his accession, about 915 A.D., the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarch undertook his famous expedition against Kanauj.

v2.c30.s3.36.4

I have shown elsewhere that in this northern campaign Indra appears to have passed through Ujjain in Malwa¹ and it is not unlikely that he may have followed the reverse of the route pursued by the Muslims, which passed along the Betwa Valley through Chanderi and Bhilsa. The success of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas thus initiated by Indra’s brilliant victories seems to have continued for some time. The Cambay plates of Govinda IV, as I have already suggested, may indicate that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas retained some hold over the Ganges-Jumna valley till *c.* 930 A.D.² Though the Partabgarh inscription of Mahendrapāla II (A.D. 845-46) shows that the Pratīhāras had recovered possession of Malwa, including Mandu and Ujjain, yet there is evidence to show that they could not effectively checkmate the northern campaigns of their southern rivals. The claim of the Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III (*c.* 940-56 A.D.) that during his father Amoghavarṣa-Vaddiga’s reign, his angry glance caused the hopes about Kālañjara and Citrakūṭa to vanish from the heart of the Gurjara, has been confirmed by the recent discovery of his inscriptions in the Ahmedabad district of Gujarat and the Maihar State in Baghelkhand Agency (C.I.).³

v2.c30.s3.37

¹ See *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 582-83 and 585-87.

v2.c30.s3.38

² *JL.*, 1917, Vol. XIV, pp. 12-15.

v2.c30.s3.39

³ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 117 and 122.

v2.c30.s3.40

⁴ *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 197 ff.

v2.c30.s3.41

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 128.

v2.c30.s3.42

¹ See chapter on the *Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 580.

v2.c30.s3.43

² *Ibid*, p. 581.

v2.c30.s3.44

³ *Ibid*, pp. 588-90.

v2.c30.s3.45

I have already referred to the success of Kṛṣṇa II (*c.* 888-912 A.D.) and his son Indra III (*c.* 915-17 A.D.) against the local branch of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in Lāṭa. Akālavarṣa-Kṛṣṇarāja (A.D. 888) appears to have been the last Rāṣṭrakūṭa chief of Southern Gujarat in the line of Indrarāja. When Bhagwanlal Indraji and Jackson wrote on the ‘Early History of Gujarat’ in 1896, they were unaware of any other feudatories of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkhed in Gujarat. But according to the traditional policy of the Deccani rulers it was naturally to be expected that after the success of Kṛṣṇa II and Indra III, they should appoint a new viceroy to govern their possessions in Gujarat. The recent discovery of the Harsola plates of Kṛṣṇa III (A.D. 949) has thrown welcome light on the Gujarat policy of the later Rāṣṭrakūṭas by revealing the existence of a family of feudatories, who appear to have supplanted the line of Indra.¹ The *Mahāmaṇḍalika-cūḍāmaṇi-M.* Sīyaka, his father Vairisiṁha, and his grandfather Bappairāja, of this inscription have been rightly identified with the well-known Paramāra rulers Vākpati I, Vairisiṁha II, and Harṣa-Sīyaka II.²

v2.c30.s3.46

¹ *PTOC*, Madras, 1924, pp. 303-08; *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 236 ff.

v2.c30.s3.47

² *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 236 ff.; *JBORS*, December, 1928, pp. 479 ff.

v2.c30.s3.48

Bardic and epigraphic traditions agree in tracing the origin of the Paramāras³ from a fire-pit on Mt. Abu. European and Indian scholars have interpreted this myth to mean that the Paramāras belonged to the Hūṇa-Gurjara stock.⁴ But the discovery of the Harsola plates seems to cast grave doubts on the reliability of this theory. The earliest reference to the fire-pit origin of the Paramāras is contained in records which belong to about the middle of the 11th century A.D.⁵ The Harsola plates, which are nearly a century older, does not refer to this origin, but on the contrary seem to state that Bappairāja (Vākpatirāja) I was descended from the family (*kula*) of the (Rāṣṭrakūṭa) Akālavarṣa (Kṛṣṇa III). Messrs. Dikshit and Diskalkar, who have edited them, have suggested that 'the Paramāras may have been descended from the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings Amoghavarṣa and Akālavarṣa, through a Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess.'⁶ But unless it is proved that 'a portion of the original draft is missing' 'through the engravers' oversight,' the clear statement that Bappairāja was born in the family of Akālavarṣa, together with the assumption of the distinctive titles *Varṣa* and *Vallabha* by some of the Paramāras would seem to indicate direct descent from the Rāṣṭrakūṭa stock.¹ It is however more difficult to explain why the Paramāras later on omit to mention their descent from such an illustrious stock. It has been pointed out by an Indian scholar ² that it is an undoubted fact that sometimes Indian dynasties neglected to mention the stock from which they sprang. Thus the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj never mention their Gurjara origin (?), and it was only the chance discovery of the inscription of a feudatory family which helped to establish the true origin of that imperial family. But it may be pointed out that in the case of the Pratīhāras, the motive for hiding their Gurjara origin was obvious. In the case of the Paramāras we can only suggest that the subsequent attempt of the Paramāras to establish their independence and the consequent hostility between the two families may have something to do with this suppression of fact. But even if this explanation is accepted, this case must remain unique. For the Rāṣṭrakūṭa feudatories of Lāṭa belonging to the family of Indrarāja, though they also endeavoured to become independent, did not try to suppress their relationship with the line of Malkhed.

v2.c30.s3.49

³ In bardic tradition and vernacular the name is spelt as Pāvār, *Pamar*, etc.

v2.c30.s3.50

⁴ I reserve the question of the origin of the Rajputs for the third volume. For the origin of the Paramāras see *AR*, Vol. I, pp. 112 ff.; *ASR*, Vol. II, pp. 254 ff.; *JBRAS*, Vol. XXI, pp. 428-29; *BG*, Vol. IX, pp. 484-85; *AAK*, Vol. II, pp. 214-15.

v2.c30.s3.51

⁵ *RMR*, 1927, pp. 2-3; *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 295 ff.; *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 10 ff. *Navasāhasāṅka-carita*, Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. LIII, 1895, XI, 64 ff.

v2.c30.s3.52

⁶ *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 239-40.

v2.c30.s3.53

¹ Note also the presence of thefigure of the *Garuḍa* symbol on both Rāṣṭrakūṭa and Paramāra grants.

v2.c30.s3.54

² Dr. D. C. Ganguly; I read a paper by him on the origin of the Paramāras before the Seventeenth Oriental Congress at Oxford, and so far as is known to me he was the first to call attention to this interpretation of the genealogical information of the Harsola plates.

v2.c30.s3.55

The main line of the Paramāras was divided into several minor branches which can be conveniently grouped under the following heads, viz., (1) *Paramāras of Lāṭa and Mālava*, (2) *Paramāras of Candrāvatī and Arbuda*, (3) *Paramāras of Banswara* (*Vāgaḍa*), (4) *Paramāras of Jalor* (*Jāvālipura*) and (5) *Paramāras of Kiradu* (*Kirātakūpa*).³

v2.c30.s3.56

³ The capital of this branch is at present unknown. I have supplied the name *Kiradu* (ancient Kirātakūpa) from the inscription of Someśvara of this branch. Recently Dr. Ganguly (*JBORS*, 1932, March, pp. 40 ff.) has suggested that Bhinmal (ancient Śrīmāla) was the headquarters of this family. But as I have not yet seen any facsimile of the much damaged Kiradu inscription and as known facts rather tend to include Bhinmal in the sphere of influence of the Paramāras of Abu, I have tentatively retained Kiradu as the name of one of the important centres of influence of the princes of this branch. The transcript of the Kiradu inscription of Someśvara published by Nahar (*Jaina Inscriptions*, Part I, 1918, pp. 251-53), the summary of Bhandarkar from his own transcript (*EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 47, No. 319) and Dr. Ganguly's version of the inscription seem to differ considerably from one another.

(1) Paramāras of Lāṭa and Mālava

v2.c30.s4.1

We have seen that the Paramāras appear in Gujarat as feudatories of the Rāshṭrakūṭas about the middle of the tenth century A.D. I have already suggested that they probably succeeded the feudatory line of Indra, whose latest date so far known is 888 A.D. A period of about 60 years intervenes between this date of Akālavarṣa-Kṛṣṇa, the last Lāṭa Rāṣṭrakūṭa, and the earliest of Sīyaka, 949 A.D. This space of time approximately equals two generations, and it is not impossible that the first connection of the Paramāras with Gujarat may have begun in the time of Bappairāja (Vākpatirāja I) under the sovereignty of Kṛṣṇa II of Malkhed, whose reign saw the destruction of his rebellious Lāṭa kinsmen.

v2.c30.s4.2

According to the Harsola plates the first name in the Paramāra genealogy is that of Bappairāja, rightly identified with Vākpatirāja I of other records. But the inscriptions of a later period trace their pedigree to the eponymous Paramāra. The earliest reference to him is probably found in the *Navasāhasāṅka-carita* of Padmagupta (*alias* Parimala),¹ which was composed in the first quarter of the 11th century. There too we first become acquainted with the mythical origin of this personage from the firepit of the sage Vasiṣṭha on Mount Arbuda. The story runs that when Viśvāmitra² forcibly took from Vasiṣṭha his cow³ the latter created from his fire-altar this hero, and when he had slain his enemies and brought back the cow that sage spoke ‘thou wilt become a lord of kings called Paramāra.’¹ In a later period we are sometimes told that he ‘received the appellation of Paramāra from that sage on account of the delight he took in killing his enemies (*Para-māraṇa*).’² Sometimes the line of Paramāra is described as *Vahni-vaṁśa*.³ The first historical person in the line of Paramāra appears to have been Upendrarāja. This name is given by Padmagupta and the Udaipur *praśasti*. But the land-grants of the family often trace the genealogy to one Kṛṣṇarāja. The identification of these two princes is generally accepted.⁴ As Bühler rightly pointed out, the fact that Vairisiṁha II, the fifth prince of the line, is said in the grants to have meditated on Kṛṣṇa's feet, need not cause any difficulty, for the phrase *tatpādānudhyāta* does not always necessarily imply immediate descent.⁵ Padmagupta mentions Upendra as the first king of the line, and tells us that he performed numerous Vedic sacrifices.⁶ The same author related that a poetess named Sītā wrote a *praśasti* on his exploits.⁷ Bühler has pointed out that Merutuṅga actually mentions a poetess named Sītā and her daughter Vijayā, though the Jain author through an evident mistake places her in the reign of Bhoja.⁸ The Udaipur *praśasti*, the only other record which mentions Upendra, confirms Padmagupta's statements.

v2.c30.s4.3

¹ XI, pp 64-72.

v2.c30.s4.4

² Sometimes called 'the royal descendant of Kuśika,' *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 183 and 190, V. 13.

v2.c30.s4.5

³ Her name Nandinī is given in the Nagpur *praśasti*, *EI*, Vol. II, p. 188, V. 13.

v2.c30.s4.6

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 234 and 236, Vs. 5-6.

v2.c30.s4.7

² *EI*, Vol. VIII, pp. 201 and 210, V. 32.

v2.c30.s4.8

³ *EI*, Vol. II, p. 182, V. 4; see also *ibid*, p. 189, fn. 61.

v2.c30.s4.9

⁴ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 225. F. W. Hall, Cunningham and Bühler accepted this identification; but Messrs. Dikshit and Diskalkar suggest that Kṛṣṇa may be another name of Vākpati (I), see *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 239.

v2.c30.s4.10

⁵ *Ibid*, p. 225.

v2.c30.s4.11

⁶ *Hema-yūpāṅkita-mahī*. XI, 78.

v2.c30.s4.12

⁷ *Sadā-gati-pravṛttena Sītocchvasita-hetunā*, *Hanumateva yaśasā yasyālaṅghyata sāgaraḥ.*—XI, 77. “Whose fame that was ever moving on and the cause of [or ‘caused by’] Sītā's song, crossed the ocean just as Hanumat, who was ever nimbly moving and whose motive (for jumping across the ocean) was to console Sītā.” Bühler, *EI*, Vol. I, p. 224.

v2.c30.s4.13

⁸ *PC*, pp. 63-64; *EI*, Vol. I, p. 224.

v2.c30.s4.14

The composer of this eulogy tells us that the fame of this prince "was proclaimed by the immortals, satisfied by the multitude of all sacrifices,—who was a jewel among the twice-born (*dvijavarga-ratna*) and gained high honour of kingship¹ (*tuṅganṛpatva-mānaḥ*) by his valour." From these statements Bühler concluded that Upendra conquered Mālava, and he placed him shortly after 800 A.D. As Upendra is the 6th in lineal ascent from Sīyaka II (949 A.D.) we can safely accept the date proposed as the nearest approximation of the time of Upendra ; but the further suggestion that he conquered Mālava, which was at this time under the strong grip of the Pratīhāras, cannot be admitted without stronger evidence. About the next three princes, Vairisiṁha (I), Sīyaka (I) and Vākpati (I), nothing definite is known. It is only the Udaipur *praśasti* which mentions all the three names ; Padmagupta omits the first two. After Upendrarāja, he introduces Vākpati (I) with the statement "*tasmin gate narendreṣu tad-anyeṣu gateṣu ca*.² The Bappaiparāja³ of the Harsola plates has been rightly accepted as the Prakrit equivalent of Vākpatirāja and identified with this Vākpati.⁴ The Udaipur *praśasti*⁵ tells us that Vairisiṁha "composed his own eulogy by (erecting) pillars of victory on the earth that is bounded by the four oceans. From him sprang the illustrious Sīyaka, a prince (standing) in the first rank of conquerors, whose footstool was resplendent and coloured by the rays of the jewels in the diadems of kings,—(he) the crowd of whose enemies was submerged in the waves of the water of the blade in his hand. From him sprang the illustrious Vākpati, a sun for those water lilies, the eyes of the maidens of Avanti, who resembled Śatamakha (Indra) and whose armies drank the waters of Gaṅgā and of the ocean.'' Most of the above eulogy is so thoroughly conventional that to one familiar with the compositions of the Indian *praśastikāras* it would not mean anything. But the last statement about Vākpati that he was 'a sun for (those) water lilies, the eyes of the maidens of Avanti,' deserves more than a passing notice. Bühler has placed these three rulers within the period *c.* 840-920 A.D.¹ If this is accepted, Vākpati would belong to about 895-920 A.D. This would make him a contemporary of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Mahīpāla (*c.* 914-43 A.D.) and the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Indra III (*c.* 915-17). I have already suggested that Indra III, when he proceeded on his northern expedition, perhaps advanced by way of Ujjain.² It is not unlikely therefore that Vākpati's association with Avanti began during this campaign; and possibly he may have been left in charge of that region when the southern emperor advanced further northwards. This fits in well with the suggestion, already made that Bappairāja (Vākpatirāja I) was probably the first Rāṣṭrakūṭa governor of *Lāṭeśvara-maṇḍala* after the extinction of the local feudatory family in the reign of Indra's predecessor Kṛṣṇa II (*c.* 888-912). That Vākpatirāja was a more substantial figure than his two immediate predecessors is shown by the fact already pointed out that Padmagupta omits Vairisiṁha and Sīyaka, but mentions him as the first name after Upendrarāja. It is also not without significance that the Harsola plates, the earliest records of the Paramāras, so far discovered, trace the donor's descent to Bappairāja (Vākpatirāja I). I am therefore disposed to regard this prince as the real founder of the importance of the family.³

v2.c30.s4.15

¹ According to Bühler 'knighthood'.

v2.c30.s4.16

² 'After him and after another (king) came.'—XI, 80.

v2.c30.s4.17

³ Dr. Barnett suggests that 'Bappaï' is the regular Prakrit equivalent of Vākpati; but the syllable *pa* after it is inexplicable, and seems to be a mistake (perhaps for *ka*).

v2.c30.s4.18

⁴ *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 239.

v2.c30.s4.19

⁵ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 234 and 237, Vs. 8-10.

v2.c30.s4.20

¹ *Ibid*, p. 225.

v2.c30.s4.21

² *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 580.

v2.c30.s4.22

³ See *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 239, where Dikshit and Diskalkar contend that Vākpati must be identified with Kṛṣṇa, who is placed immediately before Vairisiṁha II with the epithet *pādānudhyāta* in the grants of Vakpāti II. The identification of this Kṛṣṇa with Upendra of the Udaipur *praśasti* and Padmagupta, accepted by Hall, Cunningham and Bühler rests mainly on the sameness of the significance of the two names. If Dikshit and Diskalkar are right in their identification, it would strengthen my contention about Vākpatirāja. For in the grants of Vākpati II, Kṛṣṇa is given the imperial titles *Pb.-M.-P.*

v2.c30.s4.23

Vākpatirāja was succeeded by his son Vairisiṁha II. Padmagupta has only vague praise for this prince; but the Udaipur *praśasti* tells us that people called him by another name, Vajraṭasvāmin and that by him ‘famous Dhārā was indicated when he slew the crowd of his enemies with the sharp edge (*dhārā*) of his sword.’¹ Bühler understood by the last passage that smiting the foe with the edge (*dhārā*) of his sword the king indicated that Dhārā belonged to him.² This passage evidently shows that Dhārā and portions of Mālava continued to be in his possession for some time. The enemies whom he claims to have slain to prove his claim to Dhārā appear to have been the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj, who, it may be presumed, had somewhat recovered from the blow inflicted by Indra III. Since we have referred the three predecessors of this prince to the period *c.* 840-920, we can approximately assign Vairisiṁha to *c.* 920-45 A. D. This makes him a contemporary of the Pratīhāra Mahendrapāla whose Partabgarh inscription is dated in 945-46 A. D.³ As this record shows that the Pratīharas had recovered possession of Mandu, Ujjain, and the region round Partabgarh and Mandasor⁴ we are led to conclude that Vairisiṁha in the latter part of his reign was driven out of Mālwa into Gujarat by the pressure of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj.

First 159 of 764 passages. Read on

Linked texts (35)