The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c30.s6.13

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