Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s4: (1) Paramāras of Lāṭa and Mālava

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s4

Language
English

Contents

(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.

v2.c30.s4.24

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 235 and 237, V. 11.

v2.c30.s4.25

² *EI*, Vol. I, p. 237, fn. 86.

v2.c30.s4.26

³ *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 176 ff.

v2.c30.s4.27

⁴ See *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 587.

v2.c30.s4.28

Vairisiṁha II was succeeded by his son Harṣa, *alias* Sīyaka II, who according to Bühler was also known as Siṁhabhaṭa in Merutuṅga’s *Prabandhacintāmaṇi*. He accordingly made the plausible suggestion that “the complete name probably was Harṣa-siṁha (*Harakhsingh*), both parts of which were used as abbreviations, instead of the whole. The form Sīyaka is a half Prakṛtic corruption of Siṁhaka. For in modern Gujarātī and other dialects the termination of *Siṁha* becomes in names not only *Siṅgh* or *Saṅgh*, but very commonly *Sī*, which is immediately derived from the Prākṛt Sīha. Thus we find *Padamsī* instead of *Padmasiṁha*, *Narsī* for *Narasiṁha*, *Arsī* for *Arisiṁha*, *Amarsī* for *Amarasiṁha*.’¹ As against this view it must be pointed out that the name given by Merutuṅga is not *Siṁhabhaṭa*, but *Siṁhadantabhaṭa*. Bühler rejected this reading of the name given by Pandit Rāmchandra² but Tawney in his translation of Merutuṅga’s work, published in 1901, retains it.³

v2.c30.s4.29

¹ *EI*, 1892, Vol. I, p. 225

v2.c30.s4.30

² Bombay Ed., p. 55.

v2.c30.s4.31

³ *PC*, p. 30.

v2.c30.s4.32

The following published records are known for his reign.

v2.c30.s4.33

(1) *Harsola grant (a)*.—Found in the possession of a Brāhman in the village of Harsola in the Parantij taluka of Ahmedabad District, Gujarat. It contains 27 lines, incised on two copper plates. At the left-hand bottom of the second plate is incised the figure of a flying Garuḍa holding a snake in his right hand. The grant opens with an invocation to Nṛsiṁha (Viṣṇu); then follow the names: *Pb.-M-P.* Amoghavarṣa—*pādānudhyāta*—*Pb.-M-P*-Akālavarṣa Pṛthvīvallabha—Śrīvallabha⁴—*narendra-pādānāṁ*. Then follows: *tasmin kule* was king Bappaiparāja, whose son was Vairisiṁha; his son was king Sīyaka. In the formal part of the grant we are told that on his return from a successful expedition against Yogarāja, the *Mahāmaṇḍalika-cūḍāmaṇi-Mahārājādhirāja*⁵ Sīyaka was encamped on the banks of the Mahī, where after worshipping Śivanātha,⁶ at the instance of the ruler of the Kheṭaka-*maṇḍala*,⁷ in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1005 (949 A.D.), he gave away the village of Kumbhārōṭaka in the Mohaḍavāsaka-*viṣaya* to the Nagar (Brāhman) Lallōpādhyāya of Ānandapura. The *Dāpaka* ¹ was the *Ṭhakkura* Viṣṇu. It was written by the *Kāyastha* Guṇadhara. The last line contains the sign-manual of Sīyaka. ²

v2.c30.s4.34

⁴ Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa III of Malkhed (c. 940-56 A.D.). The editors of the grant point out that the identical expressions are used to denote Kṛṣṇa III in his Karhad grant (Śaka 880; *EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 278 ff.) and with the addition of *Paramamāheśvara* in the Deoli plates of the same king (Śaka 862; *EI*, Vol. V, p. 188 ff.).

v2.c30.s4.35

⁵ Dr. Barnett cannot reconcile these ‘two discrepant titles.’ But I beg to point out that the second title during this period also signified a feudatory rank; see *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 592.

v2.c30.s4.36

⁶ According to the editors ‘most probably the shrine of Sharnal.

v2.c30.s4.37

⁷ Roughly the mod. Kaira District.

v2.c30.s4.38

¹ Probably corresponding to the *Dūtaka* of other grants. The editors suggest 'person who caused the grants to be given.' See *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 178, fn. 2.

v2.c30.s4.39

² Fist noticed by Diskalkar in *PTOC*, Madras, 1924, pp. 303 ff. Now edited by Dikshit and Diskalkar in *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 236 ff.

v2.c30.s4.40

(2) *Harsola grant (b).*—Found as in No. 1 above. The inscription contains 29 lines. There is no figure of Garuḍa on the plates. It records the grant of the village of Sīhakā in the Mohaḍavāsaka-*viṣaya* to Nīnā Dīkṣita (son of the donee of No. 1). Everything else, including the date and circumstances governing the grant, as in No. 1.³

v2.c30.s4.41

³ Edited by Dikshit and Diskalkar in *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 236 ff. First noticed in *PTOC*, Madras, 1924, pp. 303 ff.

v2.c30.s4.42

(3) *Ahmedabad Grant.*—Obtained from a coppersmith of Ahmedabad. It is only an odd plate, being the second half of the grant. The first portion of the record is missing. In the left-hand corner of the plate is engraved the figure of a flying Garuḍa, holding a snake in his left hand and raising the right to strike it. The plate contains ten lines of writing of which eight are taken up by imprecatory verses. The ninth line contains the date (V.) S. 1026 (*c.* 970 A.D.) and the name of the *Dāpaka* Kaṇhapaika. The tenth line contains the sign-manual *Śrī-Sīyakasya svahasto'yaṁ*.⁴

v2.c30.s4.43

⁴ Edited by Diskalkar, *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 177-79.

v2.c30.s4.44

These three grants, which are the earliest inscriptions so far discovered for the Paramāras, show that Harṣa-Sīyaka II ruled at least for 21 years. There is reason to believe, as we shall see, that Sīyaka ruled at least up to V.S. 1029. The title *Mahāmaṇḍalika* certainly shows that Sīyaka acknowledged the sovereignty of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa III, though the simultaneous assumption of the title *Mahārājādhirāja*, may perhaps indicate his semi-independent position.¹ The fact that all his three grants come from Gujarat and that the lands granted are presumably to be located in the same tract, confirms our suggestion that sometime before 945-46 A.D. the Paramāras were hurled back by a temporary revival of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra power into Lāṭa. According to the *Navasāhasāṅka-carita* Sīyaka conquered the Raḍupāṭī-pati and a Hūṇa chief.² The Harsola grants inform us that Sīyaka was encamped on the Mahi after a successful expedition against one Yogarāja. It is uncertain whether this Yogarāja can be identified with either of the chiefs who were reported by Padmagupta to have been defeated by Sīyaka. Messrs. Dikshit and Diskalkar have suggested that possibly this Yogarāja may be one of the rulers of the Cāpotkaṭas or Cāvdās of 'Aṇahilavāḍa-Pātan.'³ Though there is not much to support this guess, yet the possibility of a conflict of Sīyaka with the Cāpas is shown by the Haddala grant (A.D. 914) of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Mahīpāla, which reveal the existence of a Cāpa principality, immediately to the west of the Mahi, in Eastern Kathiawar. In addition to these conflicts the Udaipur-*praśasti* supplies us with information about another military achievement of Sīyaka. This record tells us that Harṣa, "equalling the snake-eater (*Garuḍa*)⁴ in fierceness, took in battle the wealth of king Khoṭṭiga."⁵ Bühler has rightly identified this Khoṭṭiga with the Malkhed Rāṣṭrakūṭa of the same name (*c.* 956-71 A.D.), the younger brother and successor of Kṛṣṇa III (*c.* 940-56 A.D.). The same scholar also pointed out that Dhanapāla, the author of the Prakrit dictionary *Pāiya-lacchī*, who composed his work for his sister Sundarā in V.S. 1029 (972-73 A.D.), when Mānyakheṭa was looted by the people of Mālava, must have been referring to this expedition of Sīyaka.¹ The Arthuna inscription of the Banswara Paramāra Cāmuṇḍarāja² reveals that one of his ancestors, Kaṁka-deva (Kakkadeva?), died a hero's death on the banks of the Narmadā after overthrowing the army of the king of Karṇāṭa. We are informed by the same record that he was fighting on the side of Harṣa of Mālava, no doubt the Harṣa-Sīyaka II of the main line. The place of the battle and the name of the Southern king are supplied by the Panhera inscription of Maṇḍalika³ which tells us that Cacca died fighting against Khoṭṭika-deva at a place called Khalighaṭṭa on the Revā on behalf of Sīyaka, the great-grandfather of Jayasiṁha (V.S. 1116). There is no doubt that both the inscriptions are referring to one and the same campaign, which was connected with the great offensive of Harṣa-Sīyaka II against the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkhed. It is possible that Kaṁka (Kakka?) of the Arthuna inscription is the same as Cacca of the Panhera inscription?

v2.c30.s4.45

¹ *Cf.* Rajor stone-inscription of Mathanadeva, *EI*, Vol. III, pp. 263 ff.; also *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 592 ff.

v2.c30.s4.46

² *Hūṇ-āvarodhaṁ-vaidhavya-dīkṣa-dānaṁ.* The Hūṇa prince was probably killed.

v2.c30.s4.47

³ *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 239.

v2.c30.s4.48

⁴ The cognisance of the Paramāras.

v2.c30.s4.49

⁵ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 235 and 237, V. 12.

v2.c30.s4.50

¹ *Ibid*, p. 226.

v2.c30.s4.51

² *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 295-96.

v2.c30.s4.52

³ *ASI*, 1916-17, pp. 19-20.

v2.c30.s4.53

This conflict with his sovereign shows that Harṣa Sīyaka II was also following in the footsteps of his predecessors the Lāṭa-Rāṣṭrakūṭas. But he was more fortunate. The rapid decline of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkhed soon after the death of Kṛṣṇa III gave him ample opportunities to consolidate his power, and even to strike deadly blows against the inglorious successors of Akālavarṣa Kṛṣṇa. But the destruction of his sovereign's family, to which Sīyaka appears to have materially contributed, indirectly brought him face to face with one of the greatest crises in the history of his family. The Cālukya Taila II, who threw the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kakka II in 973 A.D., following the traditional policy of the Deccani emperors, at once attacked Lāṭa and established Bārappa as his feudatory there. The Surat grant of the *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* Kīrtirāja, Bārappa's grandson, is dated in Śaka 940 (*c.* 1018 A.D.).¹ In the north, Mūlarāja (*c.* 961-96 A.D.), who had established the Caulukya principality at Aṇahilapāṭaka in *c.* 961 A.D., became engaged in hostilities with the Cālukya feudatory of Lāṭa. The newly founded Paramāra principality of Sīyaka II was therefore placed between two millstones. Fortunately for him, the Gurjara-Pratīhāra power also rapidly declined during this period, and thus afforded him an outlet for escaping from a difficult position. He devoted his energies towards expansion in Malwa, from which his father Vairisiṁha II had been driven out by Mahendrapāla II (945-46 A.D.). The almost exclusive association of his successors with Malwa shows the wisdom and success of his policy.

v2.c30.s4.54

¹ *See infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the Caulukyas.

v2.c30.s4.55

Padmagupta supplies us with the name of Sīyaka's queen, Vaḍajā-devī. As the earliest known date of Sīyaka's successor, Vākpati II, is V.S. 1031, it is not improbable that the former's reign may have extended from *c.* 948 to 974 A.D. The following inscriptions are known for the reign of Vākpāti II, the son and successor of Sīyaka II.

v2.c30.s4.56

(1) *Dharampuri (now Indore) grant.*—The editor got this record 'from the archives of the Central India Agency.' It contains 34 lines incised on two plates. In the left corner of the second plate is incised the figure of a Garuḍa holding a snake, as in No. 3 of Sīyaka II. The inscription opens with two invocations of Śrīkaṇṭha (Mahādeva) and Murāri (Viṣṇu). Then comes the following account of the donor and his family :

v2.c30.s4.57

(1) *Pb.-M.-P.* Kṛṣṇarājadeva-*pādānudhyāta*
(2) ,, ,, ,, Vairisiṁha-deva ,,
(3) ,, ,, ,, Sīyaka-deva ,,
(4) ,, ,, ,, *Amoghavarṣa-devāparābhidhāna*
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Vākpatirāja-deva-Pṛthvīvallabha
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Śrīvallabha-narendradevaḥ.

v2.c30.s4.58

This last prince, while residing at Ujjayinī; in (V.) Saṁvat 1031 (*c.* 975 A.D.), after worshipping *Bhavānī-pati*, granted the *taḍāra*¹ named Pipparika, situated on the banks of the Narmadā (*Gardabhapānīya-bhoge Gardabhapānīya-sambaddhinī uttaru-syāṁ diśi*),² to the *jñāna-vijñāna-sampanna* Vasanta Ācārya, the son of Dhanika Paṇḍita, an emigrant from Ahicchatra. The *Dāpaka*³ of the grant was Kahnapaika.⁴ It ends with the sign-manual of Vākpatirāja-deva.⁵

v2.c30.s4.59

¹ Hall read *Vaḍar*.

v2.c30.s4.60

² In the description of the boundaries occur the names : Agāravāhalā ; Cikhillikā (mod. lalkula Chikhaldā, in Holkar's State); Gardabha-nadī (mod. Kharjā); and Piśāca-tīrtha (remains to this day). The identifications are proposed by Kirtane, *IA*, Vol. VI, p. 50.

v2.c30.s4.61

³ Kirtane reads *dāyaka*; but see grant No 3 of Sīyaka.

v2.c30.s4.62

⁴ Same as in No. 3 of Sīyaka II.

v2.c30.s4.63

⁵ Edited by Kirtane, *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 48-53 first noticed by Hall in *JASB*, Vol. XXX, pp. 195-210.

v2.c30.s4.64

(2) *Ujjain grant.*—Found while digging in a ruin in the vicinity of Ujjain. It contains 30 lines incised on two plates. The introductory portion is very similar to No. 1. In the formal part we are told that Vākpatirāja, while residing at Bhagavatpura, at the request of Āsinī, the wife of the *Mahāsādhanika* Mahāika, gratned the village of Sembalapuraka, belonging to Tiṇisapadra-dvādaśaka, to the Bhaṭṭārikā Bhaṭṭeśvarī-devī at Ujjayinī. The grant was issued in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1036 (A.D. 980), by the *Dāpaka* Rudrāditya, while residing at the *Mahāvijaya-skandhāvāra* at Guṇapura (lines 28-29). It ends with the sign-manual of Vākpatirāja-deva.⁶

v2.c30.s4.65

⁶ First noticed by R. L. Mitra, *JASB*, Vol. XIX, pp. 475 ff. Then edited by Kielhoru, *IA*, Vol. XIV. pp. 159-61. It is now in the India Office Library, London.

v2.c30.s4.66

(3 and 4) *Narwar grants.*—Found ‘at Narwar, a village near Ujjain in Gwalior State’ (C.I.). They ‘record grants of villages to certain Brāhmans by Śrī-Vākpatirāja.’ The inscriptions are reported to be dated in V.S. 1038 and V.S. 1047.⁷

v2.c30.s4.67

⁷ Noticed in the *Statesman*, 12th May, 1932.

v2.c30.s4.68

The Dharampuri and Ujjain inscriptions noticed above give us a number of *birudas* of Vākpati II, *viz.*, Amoghavarṣa, Pṛthvīvallabha, and Śrīvallabha. These were all exclusively Rāṣṭrakūṭa titles, and their assumption by Vākpati so soon after the extinction of the Malkhed branch not only seems to confirm the suspicion of the descent of the Paramāras from the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, but also perhaps indicates that Vākpati now considered himself to be the legal successor of Amoghavarṣa-Nṛpatuṅga-Kakkala (Kakka II). This explains to some extent his persistent and bitter hostility to the Cālukyas of Kalyāṇi and his repeated irruptions into the Deccan to oust the usurper Tailapa from the possessions of his ancestors. Besides these names Vākpati appears to have been known to his contemporaries by at least two others. One of these, Utpala-rāja, is supplied by the *Navasāhasāṅka-carita*.¹ The other name, Muñjarāja is found in the Nagpur *praśasti* of Naravarman.² Bühler pointed out that in Dhanika's commentary on the *Daśarūpa* the same verse is attributed at one place to "the illustrious king Vākpatirāja" and in another to "the illustrious Muñja."³ The *Prabandha-cintāmaṇi* contains a story that Vākpati was known as Muñja because he was picked up as a foundling by Siṁhadantabhaṭa (Sīyaka) from the midst of a thicket of Muñja reeds.⁴ Though Bühler rejected this story as unhistorical, it may be pointed out that it has found a place in Abu'l Faz̤l's *Ā'īn-i-Akbarī*.⁵

v2.c30.s4.69

¹ XI, 92 ff.

v2.c30.s4.70

² *EI*, Vol. 2, pp. 184 and 191, V. 23.

v2.c30.s4.71

³ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 226; see also Hall's edition in the *Bibliotheca Indica*, pp. 184 and 186.

v2.c30.s4.72

⁴ *PC*, p. 30.

v2.c30.s4.73

⁵ *AAK*, Vol. II, p. 215, but the name of Muñja's foster-father is given as 'Bijainand.'

v2.c30.s4.74

According to both literary and epigraphic tradition Vākpati II was a great warrior. The Udaipur *praśasti* tells us that 'his lotus feet were coloured by the jewels on the heads of the Karṇāṭas, Lāṭas, Keralas and Colas.'⁶ He also 'conquered Yuvarāja, and, slaying his generals, as victor, raised on high his sword in Tripurī.'⁷ Scholars are agreed that this Yuvarāja is to be identified with the second prince of that name in the family of the Kalacuris of Dāhala.¹ The attack on Lāṭa, which was now in the possession of the successors of Bārappa, was probably undertaken to recover his ancestral possessions on the western side. Bühler has expressed his doubts about the truth of the report of Vākpati's fight with the Keralas and Colas. "It is difficult to understand," says he, "how he could have come into contact with the latter two, whose countries lay at such a great distance from Mālva."² He may however have fought with these chiefs when he was engaged in his struggle with Tailapa, the Karṇāṭa king. Merutuṅga tells us that Muñja had conquered Tailapa six times.³ In the north and in the west Muñja's armies fought with the Caulukyas of Anahilwad, the Cāhamānas of Nadol, the Guhilas of Mewar and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Hathundi. The Sundha hill-inscription of the Marwar Cāhamāna Cāciga⁴ tells us that one of his predecessors, Balirāja, 'defeated an army of Muñjarāja.' In his Bijapur stone-inscription dated in V. S. 1053 (A. D. 997),⁵ the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Dhavala claims that he gave 'shelter to the armies of (a king whose name is lost) and of the lord of the Gūrjaras, when Muñjarāja had destroyed Āghāṭa,⁶ the pride of Medapāṭa (Mewāṛ) and caused them to flee.' The Gūrjara king was probably the Caulukya Mūlarāja (*c.* 961-96 A.D.)⁷ while the other defeated prince whose name is lost may well have been one of the earlier Guhila princes of Mewar, possibly Śaktikumāra (977 A.D.), the son of Śālivāhana.⁸

v2.c30.s4.75

⁶ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 235 and 237, V. 14.

v2.c30.s4.76

⁷ *Ibid*, V. 15.

v2.c30.s4.77

¹ See *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 769.

v2.c30.s4.78

² *EI*, Vol. I, p. 228.

v2.c30.s4.79

³ *PC*, p. 33. But according to the Bombay ed.; p. 53, 'sixteen times,' see *EI*, Vol. I, p. 227; *BG*, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 432.

v2.c30.s4.80

⁴ *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 70 ff.

v2.c30.s4.81

⁵ *EI*, Vol. X, pp. 18 and 20-21, V. 10. See also *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 561.

v2.c30.s4.82

⁶ Mod. Ahar near the present Udaipur station from which the Guhilot clan Āhaḍiyā derives its name.

v2.c30.s4.83

⁷ Or his successor Cāmuṇḍarāja (*c.* 996-1010).

v2.c30.s4.84

⁸ See *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II., chapters on the Caulukyas and the Guhilas.

v2.c30.s4.85

Tradition also records that Vākpati II was not only a successful military leader but also a poet and a generous patron of letters. The Udaipur *praśasti* tells us that ‘cultivating eloquence, high poetry and the art of reasoning,’ he ‘completely mastered the lore of the *Śāstras*’¹ Padmagupta calls him the ‘root of (that) creeper of Paradise, Sarasvatī’; he adds that ‘after Vikramāditya departed, after Sātavāhana went, divine Sarasvatī found rest with this friend of poets.’² Apart from the verses ascribed to this king in the *Prabandha-cintāmaṇi* and the *Bhoja-prabandha*, which Bühler regards as ‘suspicious,’ the anthologies and works on *Alaṃkāra* occasionally quote verses of this prince, ‘which show that he possessed some talent.’³ Padmagupta, *alias* Parimala, the author of the *Navasāhasāṅka-carita*, Dhanañjaya, the author of *Daśarūpa*, his brother Dhanika, the author of *Daśarūpāvaloka*, Halāyudha, the commentator on Piṅgala’s work on metrics, and probably also Dhanapāla, the author of the *Pāiya-lacchi*, were among the ornaments that adorned the court of Vākpati-Muñja.⁴

v2.c30.s4.86

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 235 and 237, V. 13.

v2.c30.s4.87

² *Ibid*, pp. 227-28. *Atīte Vikramāditye gate’ staṃ Sātavāhane.* *Kavi-mitre viśaśrāma yasmin devī Sarasvatī.* (XI, 98.)

v2.c30.s4.88

³ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 227.

v2.c30.s4.89

⁴ *Ibid.*

v2.c30.s4.90

According to Merutuṅga, the brilliant reign of Vākpati met with a tragic end. He tells us that ‘‘as the king of the Teliṅga country, named Tailapadeva, harassed Muñja, by sending raiders into his country, he determined to march against him, though his prime minister (*Mahāmātya*) Rudrāditya, who was seized with illness, endeavoured to dissuade him. The minister conjured him to make the river Godāvarī the utmost limit of his expedition, and not to advance beyond it; but he looked upon Tailapa with contempt, as he had conquered him six times before; so in his overweening confidence he crossed the river and pitched his camp on the other side.⁵ When Rudrāditya heard what the king had done, he augured that some mischief would result from his headstrong conduct and he himself entered the flames of a funeral pile. Then Tailapa by force and fraud cut Muñja’s army to pieces and took king Muñja prisoner, binding him with a rope of reed (*muñja*). He was put in prison and confined in a cage of wood and waited upon by Tailapa’s sister Mṛṇālavatī, with whom he formed a marriage-union. His ministers, who had arrived subsequently, dug a tunnel to the place where he was, and made an appointment with him.’’ The story next proceeds to relate that Muñja urged by his love to Mṛṇālavatī, revealed his plans to her, and the latter betrayed him to her brother. As a result of this Tailapa ‘had him bound with cords and taken about to beg from house to house’ for his food. ‘‘Then the king had Muñja put to death and his head fixed on a stake in the courtyard of the palace, and by keeping it continually covered with thick sour milk, he gratified his anger.’’¹ Though this story reads like a romance and its details are probably worthless as sources of history, yet there is no doubt that the main fact recorded in it is true. That Vākpati had really a minister named Rudrāditya is proved by his Ujjain grant, where a person of that name is mentioned as the *Dāpaka* residing at the *Mahāvijaya-skandhāvāra* at Guṇapura in A.D. 980. The fact that Vākpati lost his life in a war against the Cālukya Tailapa is attested by the records of the Kalyani dynasty. Two inscriptions of Vikramāditya VI (*c.* 1055-1126) tell us that Taila II killed the valiant Muñja.² The *Ā’īn-i-Akbarī* also records the tradition that Muñja ‘ended his life in the wars of the Deccan.’³ The date of this event has been fixed with tolerable certainty by Bühler.⁴ As the colophon of Amitagati’s *Subhāsita-ratna-saṁdoha* states that it was composed during the reign of Muñja in V. S. 1050 (A. D. 993-94), and as Tailapa II himself died in Śaka 919 (A.D. 997-98), it is certain that Muñja's death must have occurred between *c.* 993-94 and 997-98 A. D. The same scholar also suggested that 'the beginning of Vākpati's reign is probably not far distant from A. D. 974, the date of his first land grant.'

v2.c30.s4.91

⁵ That the Paramāra dominions sometimes really extended beyond the Godavari in the south is proved by the recent discovery, near Adilabad in the Nizam's dominions, of the Jainad inscription of the Paramāra feudatory Arjuna. See *Annual Report, Hyderabad Archaeological Survey*, 1337 F. (1927-28), pp. 23-24. See also *ibid, Appendix*, p. 21.

v2.c30.s4.92

¹ *PC*, pp. 33-36.

v2.c30.s4.93

² *IA*, Vol. XXI, pp. 167-68.

v2.c30.s4.94

³ *AAK*, Vol. 2, p. 216.

v2.c30.s4.95

⁴ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 228.

v2.c30.s4.96.1

Padmagupta tells us that 'Vākpati placed the earth in Sindhurāja's arms when he started for Ambikā's town.¹ Considering the manner of Vākpati's death, this may indicate that Sindhurāja had become anointed as *Yuvarāja* some time before Vākpati's fatal expedition to the Godavari valley. The Jain Prabandhas however assert that Muñja was succeeded not by Sindhurāja but by the latter's younger son Bhoja. Thus Merutuṅga tells us that Muñja's younger brother named 'Sindhala² out of high spirit, disobeyed the orders of Muñja; accordingly he banished him from his kingdom, and so ruled for a long time. That Sindhala came to Gujarāt, and established his settlement (*pallī*) in the neighbourhood of Kāsahrada.'³ While living there he was told by a ghost that king Muñja's destruction was drawing near and that the sceptre should descend into his line. He was therefore bidden by the ghost to return to Mālava. 'Being thus sent by the ghost he went there, and received from king Muñja a certain district, which brought him in revenue, but again displaying haughtiness, he had his eyes put out by Muñja and was confined in a wooden cage. He begat a son named Bhoja.' When Bhoja grew up, Muñja became apprehensive owing to the forecast of astrologers that his nephew was destined to rule 'Dakṣiṇāpatha with Gauḍa' for fifty-five years and three days; and fearing that if Bhoja lived, his own son would not inherit the kingdom, he ordered him to be put to death.

v2.c30.s4.96.2

But before the execution could take place, a verse from his nephew induced Muñja to change his decision and honour him ‘ with the dignity of crown prince.’ When the news of Muñja’s death reached Mālava the ministers placed Bhoja on the throne.¹ Though Bühler has doubted² it, it is not impossible that these stories may have been based on possible differences between Muñja and Sindhurāja, a phenomenon not at all unusual in Indian history. But the further statement of Merutuṅga that Sindhala was blinded and was passed over in the succession by his son Bhoja is certainly untrue, for it is contradicted not only by Padmagupta but also by epigraphic evidence. The Udaipur *praśasti* distinctly states that Vākpati was succeeded by his younger brother (*anuja*) Sindhurāja.³ The same inscription gives him credit for having conquered a Hūṇa king (*rāja*) and gained glory by other victories. But naturally a fuller account of his career is supplied by the *Navasāhasāṅka-carita*. According to the author of this *Kāvya*, Sindhurāja was also known as Navasāhasāṅka⁴ and Kumāranārāyaṇa. He had a minister (*saciva*) named Yaśobhaṭa, *alias* Rāmāṅgada. The poem opens with a description of the city of Ujjayinī.⁵ The author devotes his main attention to the description of the incidents which led to his hero’s marriage with Saśiprabhā, daughter of the Nāga king Śaṅkhapāla.

v2.c30.s4.96.3

To obtain his object he had to kill the Asura Vajrāṅkuśa, whose capital we are told was situated ‘fifty *gavyūtis* from the Narmadā.’ In his struggle against the demon prince the king had the Vidyādharas as his allies. The story is mainly mythical; but Bühler long ago perceived that it may have a historical basis. The Nāgas were a well-known ruling tribe who held principalities in Rajputana and Central India. The minute description of the distance of Vajrāṅkuśa's capital also leads us to suspect that he was probably a historical figure. But in the present state of our knowledge it is hopeless to try to identify the family or locate the principality of the enemies and allies of Sindhurāja. The passages which are of real historical importance occur in the tenth *sarga*.¹ Here we are told that Sindhurāja gained victories over the Hūṇa king (*nṛpati*) and the rulers of Vāgaḍa, Murala, Lāṭa, and Kosala. Of these the first, as we have seen, is also mentioned by the Udaipur *praśasti*, and can therefore be accepted as a fact. It is however impossible to locate the area over which the Hūṇa chief ruled. Vāgaḍa, as Bühler pointed out, roughly correspond to modern Dungarpur State in Southern Rajputana.² As the region round about Dungarpur was the stronghold of a branch of the Paramāra stock, it is not unlikely that Parimala was referring to a conflict with some representative of the Banswara branch of that family.

v2.c30.s4.96.4

The Surat grant of Kīrtirāja,³ dated in Śaka 940 (*c.* 1018), shows that Sindhurāja's opponent in Lāṭa was probably this grandson of Bārappa. In fighting against Kosala Sindhurāja was carrying on the policy of Vākpati II. The Kosala king against whom Sindhurāja made war was most probably the Kalacuri Kokalla II,⁴ the son of Yuvarāja II, the contemporary and rival of Vākpati II. Sindhurāja's struggle with the Muralas, if the latter are located near Kerala,⁵ looks rather improbable. But, as Bühler long ago suggested, this statement probably vaguely refers to a continuation of the conflicts with the Cālukyas of Kalyani.¹

v2.c30.s4.97

¹ XI, 98.

v2.c30.s4.98

² A Prakrit hypocoristic form of the name Sindhurāja, sometimes also Sindhula; see *EI*, Vol. I, p. 228.

v2.c30.s4.99

³ Forbes suggested 'probably Kāsindra Pālaree about 14 miles from Ahmedabad.' *Ras*, Vol. II, p. 85.

v2.c30.s4.100

¹ *PC*, pp. 31-33 and 36.

v2.c30.s4.101

² His doubts were mainly based on Padmagupta’s silence and his statement: ‘When his Majesty Vakpati was about to ascend to heaven, he placed a seal (*mudrā*) on my song. Sindhurāja, the younger brother of that brother of poets, now breaks it.’ ‘Had the brothers been deadly enemies,’ says he, ‘Padmagupta would certainly have been left in obscurity after his first patron’s death’ (*EI*, Vol. I, p. 230). But I do not see any reason why Sindhurāja, even if he was inimical to Vākpati, should have refused to patronise his brother’s court poet when the latter was willing to write the eulogy of the new king by composing a *Navasāhasāṅka-carita*, in which Vākpati’s victories are passed over in silence while those of Sindhurāja are exaggerated.

v2.c30.s4.102

³ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 235 and 237, V. 16.

v2.c30.s4.103

⁴ Sometimes Navīnasāhasāṅka, VI, 11.

v2.c30.s4.104

⁵ The city of Dhārā is also mentioned in the poem as *aparā purī*.

v2.c30.s4.105

¹ X, 14-20.

v2.c30.s4.106

² Ojha however holds that the whole area now occupied by Dungarpur and Banswara is known as Vāgaḍa; see *HR*, II, 453.

v2.c30.s4.107

³ *WZKM*, 1893, Band VII, pp. 88-89. See also *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the *Caulukyas*.

v2.c30.s4.108

⁴ See *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 771.

v2.c30.s4.109

⁵ See my chapter on the *Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 576, fn. 1. Muralā is identified by some with Narmadā. Can Muralas mean the tribes living on the Narmadā?

v2.c30.s4.110

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 229. Dr. Barnett doubts the correctness of this suggestion of Bühler.

v2.c30.s4.111

No inscriptions have so far been discovered for the reign of Sindhurāja. As the exact date of his successor's accession is also unknown, it is difficult to fix his reign period. From the number of victories ascribed to Sindhurāja in the *Navasāhasāṅkacarita*, Bühler guessed that the Paramāra prince must have reigned at least seven or eight years before the poem was composed. As Vākpati II died between 994 and 997 A.D. he assumed that the poem was composed about the middle of the first decade of the 11th century. 'How much longer Sindhurāja may have reigned, cannot be determined at present.'²

v2.c30.s4.112

² *EI*, Vol. I, p. 230.

v2.c30.s4.113

Sindhurāja was succeeded by his son Bhojadeva.³ The following inscriptions are known for his reign:

v2.c30.s4.114

³ He appears to have had the *biruda* Tribhuvana-Nārāyaṇa. Bhoja built a temple of Tribhuvana-Nārāyaṇa in Citrakūṭa-durga (Chitor in Udaipur State): see the Chirwa inscription of Guhila Samarasiṁha (V.S. 1330). *WZKM*, Vol. XXI, pp. 142 ff.

v2.c30.s4.115

(1) *Banswara grant.*—Originally found in the possession of the widow of a *ṭhaṭherā* (coppersmith) living at Banswara, in Southern Rajputana. The exact find-spot is not known. It contains thirty-two lines incised on two copper plates, held together by a ring. At the end of the grant, at the left-hand side of the second plate, in a rectangular border, there is the usual flying figure of Garuḍa, holding a snake in his left hand. The inscription opens with two verses invoking the god Śiva (*Vyōmakeśa, Smarārāti*), and then traces the genealogy of the Paramāras from *Pb.-M.-P.*-Sīyakadeva (II) to *Pb.-M.-P.*-Bhojadeva. It then records that the last prince, 'at the anniversary⁴ of the conquest of Koṅkaṇa' (*Koṁkaṇa-vijaya-parvaṇi*), having worshipped *Bhavānīpati* (Śiva), granted 100 *nivartanas* of land at Vatapadraka,¹ included in the Ghāghradora-*bhoga* of Sthalī-*maṇḍala*, to the Brāhman Bhāïla, whose ancestors had emigrated from Chiñchā-*nagara*. The date is given in line 31 as (V.) Saṁvat 1076 Māgha Sudi 5 (3rd January, A.D. 1020). The writing in both the plates end with the sign-manual of Bhojadeva.²

v2.c30.s4.116

⁴ *Parvaṇi* may also be translated as 'on the festival day,' *IA*, 1912, p. 201.

v2.c30.s4.117

¹ Identified by some with mod. Baroda.

v2.c30.s4.118

² Edited by Hultzsch, *EI*, Vol. XI, pp. 181-83; also by D. R. Bhandarkar, *IA*, 1912, pp. 201-02.

v2.c30.s4.119

(2) *Betma grant.*—Found buried in a field at the village of Beṭmā, 16 miles to the west of Indore in Central India. It contains 27 lines, incised on two copper plates, held together by a ring. The second plate contains, like No. 1, a flying figure of Garuḍa holding a snake. The introductory portion is as in No. 1. In the formal part of the grant we are told that Bhojadeva, on the occasion of the festival day of the victorious occupation³ of Koṅkaṇa (*Koṁkaṇa-grahaṇa-vijaya-parvaṇi*), granted the village of Nālataḍāga,⁴ included in Nyāyapadra⁵-*saptadaśaka*, to the Brāhman *Paṇḍita* Delha, who came from Sthāṇvīśvara. It is dated in (V.) Saṁvat 1076, the 15th day of the bright fortnight of Bhādrapada (September, 1020 A.D.).⁶

v2.c30.s4.120

³ According to some 'subjugation,' *EI*, Vol. XVIII, p. 324.

v2.c30.s4.121

⁴ May be mod. Nār (Nāl) in the Kaira District, *EI*, Vol. XVIII, p. 322.

v2.c30.s4.122

⁵ May be mod. town of Nāpad, in the Kaira District, to the S.W. of Indore, *ibid*.

v2.c30.s4.123

⁶ Edited by Diskalkar, *EI*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 320-25.

v2.c30.s4.124

(3) *Ujjain grant.*—Discovered by a farmer while digging in his field, which adjoins a small stream called Nāgajhari at Ujjain. It contains 31 lines, incised on two plates. Figure of Garuḍa as in No. 1. The introductory portion as in the two grants mentioned above. It records that when Bhojadeva was residing at Dhārā, he granted the village of Vīrāṇaka, situated in the Nāgadraha-*paścima-pathaka*, to the Brāhmaṇ Dhanapati Bhaṭṭa of the Karṇāṭa (country), an emigrant from Bādāvi attached to Belluvalla.⁷ The date is given in lines 30-31 as (V.) Saṁvat 1078 (*c.* 1022 A.D.).⁸ (4) *Depalpur grant.*—Found at Depalpur. 24 miles to the north-west of Indore (C. I.). It contains 30 lines incised on two copper plates held together by two copper rings. Flying figure of Garuḍa and the introductory portion as in No. 1 above. It records that the last prince after taking his bath in the expiation-fee (in the form of a river) for the slaughter of animals¹ and having worshipped the *Bhavānīpati* (Śiva) while residing at Dhārā,² granted 34 *aṁśas* of level land (*prastha*),³ furnished with 4 ploughs (*halacatuṣṭayasamvṛttam*) at Kirikaikā⁴ in the western *Pathaka* of Ujjayinī to the Brāhmaṇ Vacchala, who had migrated from Mānyakheṭa.⁵ The grant is dated in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1079 on Caitra Śudi 14 (19th March, 1022 A.D.). The writing on both the plates end (as in No. 1 above) with the sign-manual of Bhojadeva.⁶

v2.c30.s4.125

⁷ The editor wrongly translated the passage as 'Who being an inhabitant of Rādhā Surasaṅga Karṇāṭa.' But see Fleet, *IA*, 902, p. 365. Belluvalla was situated close to Badami.

v2.c30.s4.126

⁸ Edited by Kirtane (N. J.), *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 53-55.

v2.c30.s4.127

¹ The editor plausibly suggests that this must indirectly refer to the river Carmaṇvatī (mod. Chambal). See in this connection the story of king Rantideva, *Mahābhārata*, *Droṇaparva*, 67. *IHQ*, 1932, pp. 308-09.

v2.c30.s4.128

² Modern Dhar, capital of the Dhar State, C. I.

v2.c30.s4.129

³ I am not sure that *prastha* here does not mean a measure of land.

v2.c30.s4.130

⁴ Modern village of Kirki, in the Depalpur Pargana on the Chambal about 6 miles from Depalpur.

v2.c30.s4.131

⁵ Modern Malkhed.

v2.c30.s4.132

⁶ Edited with plates by R. G. Ojha, *IHQ*, June, 1932, pp. 305-15. Note author's remarks on the numeral signs—the figure 7 (in the date, line 29), *ibid*, p. 308.

v2.c30.s4.133

(5) *Kalvan plates of Yaśovarman.*—Discovered in the village near Kalvan, in the N. W. of Nasik District, Bombay Presidency. It contains 45 lines, incised on three plates of copper. The grant opens with an eulogy of the Paramāra⁷ Bhojadeva of Dhārā and his ancestry from Sīyakadeva (II). We are then told that through Bhoja's favour the illustrious Yaśovarman had obtained the town (*nagara*) of Selluka and was enjoying 1,500 villages. The inscription then records that in the (village) Muktāpalī in the Auḍrahāḍi-*viṣaya*, the *Sāmanta*, the illustrious *Rāṇaka* Amma of the Gaṅga family, being convinced of the excellence of the *Jina-dharma* from the teachings of the Śvetāmbara *ācārya* Ammadeva, gave some land at Mahiṣabuddhika, at the holy *tīrtha* of Kālakāleśvara.¹ The grant was made by Amma on the occasion of a solar eclipse and the *amāvāsya* day of the month of Caitra, after having washed the feet of (the *ācārya* ?) with water thrown from the hands of his wife *rājñī* Caccāī of the Cālukya family. This land measured 40 *nivartanas*. A second piece of land measuring 25 *nivartanas* was given by *Rāja* Kakkapāi. A third piece of land measuring 35 *nivartanas*, a flower-garden measuring 2 *nivartanas*, 2 oil-mills (*taila-ghāṇaka*), 14 shops (*Vaṇik-haṭṭāḥ*), and 14 *drammas* were given by the commercial community consisting of Vakaaigala and others.² The donee apparently was the temple of the Jina in the Śvetapada³ (country), which was thoroughly repaired and dedicated (*nivedita*) to the illustrious *Muni* Suvratadeva. The grant was written by *Sāndhivigrahika* Jogeśvara. It is not dated in any era.⁴

v2.c30.s4.134

⁷ In the original plate *Pravāmra*, probably a mistake for *Pramāra*.

v2.c30.s4.135

¹ Identified with the temple of Kālakāleśvara, which still exists about 10 miles from Kalvan. *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 70.

v2.c30.s4.136

² The editor translates *Vakaaigala prabhṛti-nagarena* as ‘Vakaaigala and others of the town.’ But Dr. Barnett points out that *nagara* is a regular term in the south for a ‘commercial community.’

v2.c30.s4.137

³ Identified with the northern portion of Nasik district, *ibid.*

v2.c30.s4.138

⁴ Edited by R. D. Banerji, *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 69-75. The editor's arguments that the grant must be referred to the period of confusion after the death of Bhoja do not appear to me to be convincing. I agree with Hirananda Sastri that Yaśovarman was a feudatory of Bhoja (*ibid*, p. 72, fn. 1) at the time of the grant. See also Diskalkar, *EI*, Vol. XVIII, p. 320, fn. 3.

v2.c30.s4.139

(6) *British Museum image-inscription.*—An image of Sarasvatī, dated in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1091 (A.D. 1034-35) in the reign of Bhoja.⁵

v2.c30.s4.140

⁵ Noticed in *EI*, Vol. XVIII, p. 320, fn. 3. Transcribed by Dikshit, *Rūpam*, 1924, p. 2.

v2.c30.s4.141

(7) *Tilakwada grant.*—Found at Tilakwada, in the bed of the river Narbada, the headquarters of a *mahal* contiguous to that of Sankheda in the Baroda Prānt, Baroda State. The grant originally consisted of 3 plates, of which the first, containing the greater part of the introductory portion, is missing. The present portion of the grant practically begins with: ‘From him (Sindhurāja ?) was born Bhojadeva.’ We are then introduced to the *Narottama* (prince ?) Surāditya (Sūrāditya) of the Śravaṇabhadra-*vaṁśa*, who came from Kanyakubja and was a devotee of the lotus-like feet of Bhoja.¹ His son Jasorāja (Yaśorāja), who resided in Saṅgamakheṭa-*maṇḍala*, having bathed in the Narmadā in V. S. 1103 (*c.* 1047 A.D.), in the temple of Śiva Maheśvara, situated at the confluence of the (river) Maṇā, granted to the god Ghaṇṭeśvara, the village of Viluhaja and also a hundred (measures) of land in the village of Ghaṇṭāpallī. The sage Dinakara was appointed a trustee for the administration of the endowment. The grant was written by the *Kāyastha* Sohika.²

v2.c30.s4.142

¹ He is said to have fought with Sāhavāhana (?) and others and made the royal glory of Bhojadeva stable. *EI*, Vol. XIX, *Appendix*, p. 21, No. 128.

v2.c30.s4.143

² Edited by Kudalkar, *PTOC*, Poona, 1919, pp. 319-26.

v2.c30.s4.144

The dates in the inscriptions noticed above range from V.S. 1076 to 1103, *i.e.*, from about 1020 to 1047 A.D. Two more dates for Bhoja's reign within these limits are supplied by literary tradition. One of these is supplied by al-Bīrūnī, who records that in *c.* 1030 A.D., when he composed his *Indica*, the king of Dhārā, the capital of Mālava, was Bhojadeva.³ Another date, Śaka 964 (A.D. 1042-43), is supplied by the *Rājamṛgāṅka-karaṇa*.⁴ Bühler, chiefly relying on the statement of Bilhaṇa that on his journey from Kashmir to various places in Northern India Dhārā cried out to him 'Bhoja is my king,'⁵ placed the death of Bhoja sometime after the year 1062 A.D.⁶ But the Māndhātā grant of his successor Jayasiṁha shows that he must have died in or before V.S. 1112 (A.D. 1055-56).⁷ The upper limit is more difficult to settle. The fact that his Banswara plates show that he had already conquered Konkan in 1020 A.D. certainly indicates that he ascended the throne some time before that date. Bühler has pointed out from the Cāḷukya records that Bhoja fought with the Cālukya Jayasiṁha some time between Śaka 933 (1011-12 A.D.) and Śaka 941 (A.D. 1019-20). As Padmagupta, who probably composed his work in *c.* 1005, does not refer to Bhoja, Bühler thought that Bhoja at that time had not reached the age of 16, the Indian age of majority. He therefore concluded that Bhoja's accession must fall *c.* 1010 A.D., or even somewhat later.¹ With this conclusion most scholars agree.

v2.c30.s4.145

³ *KH*, Trans. by Sachau, Vol. I, p. 191.

v2.c30.s4.146

⁴ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 232.

v2.c30.s4.147

⁵ *Vikramāṅkadeva-carita*, XVIII, 96.

v2.c30.s4.148

⁶ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 233.

v2.c30.s4.149

⁷ *EI*, Vol. III, pp. 46 ff.

v2.c30.s4.150

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 232-33.

v2.c30.s4.151.1

The Paramāra inscriptions are unanimous in praising Bhoja's great military talents. Thus the Udaipur *praśasti* teils us that he resembled king Pṛthu and "possessed the earth up to Kailāsa, up to the Malaya hills, and up to the two mountains of the setting and the rising sun; he scattered in all directions the weighty crowd of earth-supporters (*urvībhara*), easily uprooting them with the shaft of his bow. Seeing the Karṇāṭas, the lords of Lāṭa, the king of Gūrjara, the Turuṣkas, chief among whom were the lord of Cedi, Indraratha,² Toggala³ (?) and Bhīma, conquered by his mercenaries (*bhṛtya*)⁴ alone, his hereditary warriors (*maula*)⁵ thought only of the strength of their arms, not of the numbers of their fighters."⁶ The Dhar *praśasti* of Arjunavarman designates Bhoja as a *Sārvabhauma*, and gives him credit for having defeated Gāṅgeya, the Kalacuri king of Tripurī⁷ (*c.* 1030-41 A.D.). It is true there is much exaggeration in these statements of the *praśasti*-writers. But epigraphic evidence shows that there is a substantial basis for ascribing to Bhoja many of these conquests. The war with the Karṇāṭas was only another episode in the struggle which had taken so disastrous a turn in the reign of Vākpati II, and which was to prove in the end equally disastrous to Bhoja. But in the beginning of his reign Bhoja appears to have retaliated with success, and may have even avenged the death of Muñja.

First 154 of 425 passages. Read on

Linked texts (49)