The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s3.48

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.