The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s6: (3) Paramāras of Banswara (Vāgaḍa)

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s6

Language: English

(3) Paramāras of Banswara (Vāgaḍa)

v2.c30.s6.1

¹ The capital of this branch appears to have been near mod. Arthuna. According to Ojha it was named Utthuṇaka: *HR*, I, p. 208.

The existence of this branch is known from the *Arthuna inscription of Cāmuṇḍarāja* and a number of other records. The Arthuna inscription was discovered near Arthuna, a village about 28 miles to the west of Banswara in Rajputana. It is incised on a slab on the right side of the *Sikhara* of the temple of Maṇḍaleśvara Mahādeva, situated about a mile to the east of Arthuna, and contains 53 lines, opening with *Oṁ namaḥ Śivāya*, and two verses invoking Devī and the moon-crested god (Śiva). Then follows the following genealogy of the Paramāras:—

v2.c30.s6.3

v2.c30.s6.4

The object of the inscription is to record the foundation and endowment² of the temple of Maṇḍaleśa (Śiva)³ by the last prince. It is dated in the last line in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1136 (*c.* 1080 A.D.); but through a mistake in V. 86 we are told that the *praśasti* was composed by Candra of the Sādhāra family when ‘1136 was elapsing since the Śaka king.’ The record was written by Āsarāja of the Kāyastha race.⁴

v2.c30.s6.5

² For this see Vs. 68-81, pp. 302-03 and 309-10, *EI*, Vol. XIV.

v2.c30.s6.6

³ Apparently the same temple at Arthuna where the inscription was found. *EI*, Vol. XIV, p. 296.

v2.c30.s6.7

⁴ First noticed by Kielhorn in *IA*, Vol. XXII, p. 80. Then edited by Dr. Barnett in *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 295-300. In *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 24, No. 145, Bhandarkar refers the inscription to the time of Maṇḍanadeva. His son, Cāmuṇḍarāja, according to him, is 'mentioned as merely living when the temple was built by Maṇḍana.'

v2.c30.s6.8

An earlier inscription of the Paramāras of this branch is the *Panhera stone-inscription* engraved on a slab built into the wall of the temple of Maṇḍaleśvara Mahādeva at Panhera (Pāṇāheṛā), in Banswara State, Rajputana. It is broken into 3 pieces, of which the second is missing. The first 5 verses are in praise of Śiva. It then goes on to describe the origin of the Paramāras from the fire-pit on Mt. Arbuda, and extols the five Paramāra princes of Malwa, *viz.*, Sīyaka,¹ Muñjadeva, Sindhurāja, Bhoja and Jayasiṁha. Then follows the following genealogy of the local branch:—

v2.c30.s6.9

¹ The name is broken; but it is restored from the latter part of the inscription, *RMR*, 1917, pp. 2-3.

v2.c30.s6.11

The last prince, Maṇḍalika, was apparently a feudatory of Jayasiṁha. Maṇḍalika built at Pāsulākheṭaka a temple of the god Śiva known after him as Maṇḍaleśvara. The record is dated in (V.) S. 1116 (*c.* A.D. 1059).³

v2.c30.s6.12

³ Noticed in *ASI*, 1916-17, pp. 19-20; also in *RMR*, 1917, pp. 2-3 and *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 22, No. 138.

v2.c30.s6.13

According to the Arthuna inscription, Kaṁka (Kakka) died fighting on the side of Śrī-Harṣa of Mālava, against the king of Karṇāṭa on the banks of the Narmadā. This Harṣa has rightly been identified with Harṣa-Sīyaka II (*c.* 949-70 A.D.) of the Mālava line, who in the Udayapur *praśasti* is eulogised for taking the wealth of (the Rāṣṭrakūṭa) Khoṭṭiga, the successor of Kṛṣṇa III, of Malkhed (*c.* 940-56 A.D.). I have already suggested the identity of Kakka with Cacca of the Panhera inscription¹ because Cacca is ‘credited in the latter record with the same achievement and a similar death on the banks of the Revā. The contemporaneity of Kakka-Cacca with Harṣa-Sīyaka II makes it seem very probable that Vairisiṁha who stands at the head of the genealogical table in the Arthuna inscription, is identical with the first prince of that name in the Mālava line.² If this is so the Banswara Paramāras, like the Abu Paramāras, would be a branch of the main line ruling in Lāṭa and Malava. The Banswara section claimed descent from Ḍambarasimha, brother of Vairisiṁha. But the exact relationship between the former and Kakka-Cacca is unknown. The Panhera inscription carries back the genealogy of this branch to Dhanika, the uncle of Cacca who is said to have built the temple of Dhaneśvara ‘as white as snow,’ near Mahākāla (at Ujjain).³ Kakka-Cacca's son was Caṇḍapa who has been placed in *c.* 1000 A.D. by Dr. Barnett.⁴ Nothing but vague praise is assigned to him in the Arthuna inscription. He was succeeded by Satyarāja who probably flourished in *c.* 1025 A.D. According to the Panhera inscription he ‘received fortune’ from Bhoja, and fought with the Gurjaras. His wife was Rājaśrī, of the illustrious family of the Cāhamānas. It would appear from this that he must have fought as a feudatory of Bhoja (*c.* 1010-55 A.D.), in the latter's struggles with Bhīma I (*c.* 1022-64 A.D.). According to the Arthuna inscription Satyarāja was succeeded by his son Limbarāja, and the latter by his younger brother Maṇḍalika. This Maṇḍalika appears to be the same as the Maṇḍanadeva of the Arthuna list. The Panhera inscription shows that this Maṇḍalika (Maṇḍana) was a feudatory of the Malwa Paramāra Jayasiṁha (*c.* 1055-60 A.D.). The same record tells us that Maṇḍalika captured in battle the ‘Commander Kanha’ with his horses and elephants and handed him over to Jayasiṁha. The identity of this Kanha (Kṛṣṇa) is however uncertain.¹ According to the Arthuna inscription Maṇḍana was succeeded by his son Cāmuṇḍarāja.² He is said to have ‘gloriously overcome’ one Sindhurāja. Dr. Barnett rightly guessed that this Sindhurāja could not be identified with the Mālava Paramāra of that name who ruled in *c.* 994-1010 A.D. It is not unlikely that Sindhurāja may here mean a king of Sind, and Cāmuṇḍa may have undertaken an expedition to the lower Indus valley, in company with some of his more powerful neighbours. Besides the Arthuna inscription noticed above, there are two other records of Cāmuṇḍa which were discovered at the same place. These two *Arthuna inscriptions* bear the dates (V.) S. 1137 (*c.* 1080 A.D.) and 1159 (*c.* 1102 A.D.).³ Both these records are much damaged. The former seems to mention the name of an officer of Cāmuṇḍarāja one of whose 3 sons, Anantapāla, founded a temple of Śiva, probably the same temple amongst the ruins of which the record is stated to have been discovered. The other is much defaced, and is said to have been found in a Jain temple.⁴

v2.c30.s6.14

² The *RMR*, 1917, pp. 2-3, restores it as 'Caṇḍapa' from the Arthuna inscription.

v2.c30.s6.15

¹ See *supra, DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 851; but the *ASI*, 1916-17, pp. 19-20, considers them to be separate.

v2.c30.s6.16

² *EI*, Vol. XIV, p. 296, fn. 1.

v2.c30.s6.17

³ *RMR*, 1917, pp. 2-8.

v2.c30.s6.18

⁴ *EI*, Vol. XIV, p. 296. This name appears to have been lost in the Panhera record.

v2.c30.s6.19

¹ In the Arthuna inscription of Vijayarāja (V.S. 1166) Maṇḍalika is said to have killed Sindhurāja, *EI*, XX, *App.*, p. 29, No. 179. I have however tentatively accepted 'the view of Kielhorn and Barnett.

v2.c30.s6.20

² See above, fn. 1, on p. 920.

v2.c30.s6.21

³ Noticed in *RMR*, 1915, p. 2. See also *ASI, WC*, 1909, p. 49; *ibid*, 1915, p. 35.

v2.c30.s6.22

⁴ In the Arthuna inscription of Vijayarāja (V.S. 1166=*c.* 1109 A.D.) Cāmuṇḍarāja (*c.* 1080-1102 A.D.) is said to have destroyed the king of Avanti in the Sthalī (Vāgaḍa) country, *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 29, No. 179. This king of Avanti was probably the Caulukya Jayasiṁha Siddharāja (*c.* 1094-1144 A.D.) who invaded and conquered Malava and assumed the title *Avantinātha*. See *JBRAS*, Vol. XXV, 1917-21, pp. 322 ff.; also *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the Caulukyas.

v2.c30.s6.23

The fortunate discovery of an image of Hanumān at Arthuna in the year 1918 has revealed the name of Cāmuṇḍarāja’s son and successor. The pedestal of this image bears an inscription dated in (V.) S. 1165 (*c.* 1108 A.D.), in the reign of Vijayarāja, the son of Cāmuṇḍarāja and the grandson of Maṇḍana. Another Arthuna stone-inscription of this king dated in V.S. 1166 (*c.* 1109 A.D.) is preserved in the Rajputana Museum.² What happened to this branch after the reign of Vijayarāja is at present unknown. It seems likely that they were gradually ousted from this region by the rising power of the Guhilas of Mewar. The Guhila prince Sāmantasiṁha (*c.* 1171-79 A.D.), after being in turn ousted from Mewar is reported to have founded a principality in that portion of Vāgaḍa which is now known as the Dungarpur State.³

v2.c30.s6.24

² *ASI, WC*, 1909, p. 49; Ojha, *HR*, I, p. 208.

v2.c30.s6.25

³ *Ibid.*; *see also infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the *Guhila-putras*.

v2.c30.s6.26

(4) *Paramāras of Jalor (Jābālipura).*

v2.c30.s6.27

The existence of this branch is known from a stone-inscription dated in V.S. 1174 (*c.* 1118 A.D.) which is reported to have been discovered in a temple of Śiva at Jalor, in the State of Jodhpur. It supplies the following list of the princes of this family: (1) Vākpati-rāja, his son, (2) Candana, his son, (3) Devarāja, his son, (4) Aparājita, his son, (5) Vijjala, his son, (6) Dhārāvarṣa, and his son, (7) Vīsala. It records that in the year mentioned above Mallāradevī, the queen of No. 7, placed a golden *Kalaśa* on the temple of Sindhurājeśvara.⁴ Rai Bahadur G. H. Ojha thinks that this line was an offshoot of the Abu Paramāras, and he refers Vākpatirāja of this inscription and Mahīpāla-Devarāja of the Abu line to the same period. To me however it seems that the Vākpati of the Jalor inscription was possibly Vākpati II (*c.* 974-95 A.D.) of the Mālava line, and thus he may be identical with Utpalarāja to whom the earlier Abu Paramāras trace their genealogy.⁵ In that case we must suppose that after conquering the Sukri valley in the Jodhpur State, Vākpati II placed another of his sons as his feudatory over this tract. It is possible that after the disastrous defeat of Bhoja (*c.* 1010-55 A.D.) this line became independent of the control of the parent branch. The successors of Udayāditya do not appear to have been strong enough to exercise control over their distant kinsmen in Marwar. There is no record of the history of Vīsala's immediate successors. According to Mūṭā Neṇsī Jalor was wrested from the Paramāras by Kīrtipāla, a brother of the Nadol Cāhamāna Kelhaṇa (*c.* 1164-79 A.D.).¹ We have seen that a section of the descendants of Kīrtipāla, the *Devḍa* Cāhamānas subsequently ousted the Paramāras also from Abu.