The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s1: (1) The Kacchapaghātas of Gwalior
The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s1
- Language
- English
(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.