The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s3: (3) The Kacchapaghātas of Narwar
The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s3
- Language
- English
Contents
- v2.c30.s3.36 — 4 parts
(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.
Linked texts (2)
- Navasāhasāṅkacarita — Padmagupta Parimala, Sanskrit
- Nalapura