Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c31: Chapter XV. The Caulukyas (Solaṅkis) of Anahila-Pāṭaka

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c31

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XV. The Caulukyas (Solaṅkis) of Anahila-Pāṭaka

v2.c31.2

Unlike the history of many other dynasties which ruled in India during the period under survey, that of the Caulukyas¹ of Gujarat and Kathiawar, who ruled in those regions for nearly three and a half centuries (c. 950-1304 A. D.), suffer from no dearth of materials. Not only have we numerous epigraphic records of these kings, but—what is more important—we have a number of Jain chronicles carefully registering the dates and incidents of each reign. Indeed, the facts are so plentiful that in a work like the present one we shall only have space to mention briefly the incidents of the reign of these kings, and to indicate as far as possible the sources whence future students may construct a more detailed history, the broad outlines of which have already been fixed by Bühler,² Bhagvanlal Indraji, and Jackson.³

v2.c31.3

¹ This is supposed by some scholars to be "a Sanskritised form, through an earlier form Cāḷukya, of the old names Calkya, Cailkya, Cirikya...made to harmonise with the Purānik-looking story that the founder of the dynasty sprang from the *Culuka* of Brahmā. The popular variant of the word seems to have been Solaki or Solaṅki." See *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 156. The eponymous founder of the family is named Culukya, because born in the *Culuka* of the Creator: *EI*, Vol. I, p. 294. Compare also the forms Śulikas and Śūlkis, *EI*, XIV, pp. 117 and 120. See also *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 348 ff. and fn. 2 on p. 438. To Dr. Barnett however 'the connection of Caulukya and Cāḷukya seems rather dubious.'

v2.c31.4

² *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 180ff.

v2.c31.5

³ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 156ff.

v2.c31.6

The history of Gujarat and Kathiawar immediately before the rise of the Caulukyas of Aṇahilapāṭaka (Anhilvad) is mainly connected with the general history of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj. The Una grants⁴ of the Cālukya feudatory Avanivarman, dated in A.D. 893 and 899 unquestionably show that the whole of this region, up to the southernmost part of the peninsula, was included in the empire of Mahendrapāla I (*c.* 893-907 A.D.). The Haddala grant¹ of the Cāpa feudatory Dharaṇīvarāha, indicates that Mahīpāla held at least Gujarat up to 914 A.D. I have already shewn elsewhere that the invasion of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Indra III (*c.* 915-17 A.D.) and the defeat of Mahīpāla I (*c.* 914-43 A.D.) soon after A.D. 915 had very serious consequences for the fortunes of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire.² Though the Partabgarh inscription of Mahendrapāla II, dated in 945-46 A.D., proves that the Pratīhāras recovered their hold for some time in Malwa, there is enough evidence to indicate that their hold on Gujarat and Kathiawar grew precarious. The Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III (*c.* 940-56 A.D.) seem to show a renewal of Rāṣṭrakūṭa pressure on these provinces in the reign of his father Amoghavarṣa III Vaddiga (*c.* 934-40 A.D.). The statement contained in them, that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas advanced as far as Citrakūṭa,³ seems to be confirmed by the recently discovered Ahmedabad plates (949-70 A.D.) of the Paramāra Sīyaka II, a feudatory of Akālavarṣa Kṛṣṇa III.⁴ These struggles between the Gurjaras and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas apparently produced disorder and anarchic conditions in this area, such as are always favourable to the rise of bold adventurers and new dynasties. The Gurjara-Pratīhāra power had been sinking since its disastrous defeats in the second decade of the tenth century. But the rapid decline of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas during the period (*c.* 956-73 A.D.) which followed the death of Kṛṣṇa III must have indirectly helped the immediate rise of the Caulukyas in Gujarat.

v2.c31.7

⁴ *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 1-10.

v2.c31.8

¹ *IA*, Vol. XII, pp. 190-95; *ibid*, Vol. XVIII, p. 90.

v2.c31.9

² See *DHNI*, Vol. I, chapter on the *Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras*, pp. 580 ff.

v2.c31.10

³ Probably Chitor in Mewar, Rajputana, *see DHNI*, Vol. I, fn. 4 on p. 589.

v2.c31.11

⁴ *PTOC*, Madras, 1925, pp. 303-08; *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 177-79, 236 ff.; also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 848-49.

v2.c31.12

The Gujarat chronicles give us a rather romantic, if unreliable, story of this dynasty's origin. This can be briefly summarised as follows. The Cāpotkaṭas,¹ commonly known as Cāvaḍās,² ruled in Pañcāsara³ in the period *c.* 720-956 A.D. During the reign of Sāmantasiṁha, *alias* Bhuvaṭa, the last prince of this line, Rāji, Bīja, and Daṇḍaka, the 3 sons of Bhuvanāditya, the ruler of Kalyāṇa-kaṭaka in Kanauj⁴ started incognito in the guise of beggars on a pilgrimage to Somnath. On their way back they attended a cavalry-parade held by Sāmantasiṁha. A criticism made by Rāji, on some of the cavalry movements pleased Sāmantasiṁha, who, taking him to be the scion of some noble family, gave him his sister Līlādevī in marriage. Līlādevī died pregnant, and the child, who was taken alive from his dead mother's womb, was called Mūlarāja, because the operation was performed, when the Mūla constellation was in power. Mūlarāja grew up an able and popular prince, and, having slain his uncle, usurped his throne.⁵

v2.c31.13

¹ Also Cāvoṭaka. According to Bhagvānlāl and Jackson, 'connected with the Cāpas of Bhinmal and of Wadhwan, and are therfore of Gurjara race.' *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 155.

v2.c31.14

² Also as Cauḍa or Caura and Cowra or Cāwara; see *AR*, Vol. I, p. 121; *Ras*, Vol. I, p. 37.

v2.c31.15

³ Mod. village of that name in Vadhiar, between Gujarat and Cutch; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 149 and fn. 8.

v2.c31.16

⁴ Apart from the city of Kanauj, Kānyakubja also sometimes signified a province. See Barah grant of Bhoja (886 A.D.) for the mention of Kanyakubja-*bhukti*, which included Kālañjara-*maṇḍala*: *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 18, line 6. A Veraval inscription, dated in 1169 A.D., mentions Vāṇārasī (Benares) as included in Kānyakubja-*viṣaya*; *WZKM*, Vol. III, p. 7, lines 5-6.

v2.c31.17

⁵ *BG.*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 156-57; *Kumārapāla-carita*, Nirnaysagar Press, Bombay 1926, I, 15 ff. *AAK*, Vol. II, p. 262.

v2.c31.18

Though it is difficult to disentangle truth from fiction in this story it undoubtedly contains some elements of fact. The existence of the Cāvoṭakas as a ruling power in Gujarat in the first half of the 8th century A.D. is proved by the Nausari grant of the Cālukya prince Pulakeśi Avanijanāśraya (739 A.D.).⁶ It tells us that sometime before 739 A.D. an army of the Arabs (*Tājikas*) destroyed the Saindhava, Kacchella, Saurāṣṭra, Cāvoṭaka, Maurya and Gurjara kings, and on their way to the Deccan advanced as far as the Navasārikā country (situated in Lāṭa). The Haddala grant of Mahīpāla shows that the Cāpas as a feudatory power lingered on in Eastern Kathiawar and Central Gujarat, till 914 A.D. The Una grants indicate the existence in Gujarat of the Cālukya feudatories of the Kanauj rulers in A.D. 893 and the period preceding it. It is therefore not unlikely that one of these vassals who was connected by blood with the Cālukyas of Kalyani and through marriage with the Pratīhāras of Kanauj, overthrew the small Cāpotkaṭa principality at Pañcāsara.¹ This may have been the origin of the distorted tradition of a prince from Kalyāṇa in Kanauj. But in the present state of our knowledge of Indian history it is unsafe to assert dogmatically that there could not have existed in the first half of the 10th century a city named Kalyāṇa in the province of Kanauj² which was also the seat of a local Cālukya principality. Whatever may be the value of these guesses, we may probably conclude that Mūlarāja, the founder of the Caulukyas of Gujarat, was really the son of a Cāvaḍā princess who destroyed his maternal uncle and seized his principality at Aṇahilapāṭaka.³ In the inscriptions his father Rāji is designated a *Mahārājādhirāja*.⁴ During the period under survey this title often indicated no more than feudatory rank,⁵ and it is not impossible that Rāji's family, as well as that of his wife, were vassals of the great Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire. As I have already suggested, Mūlarāja profiting by the decline in the power of the Pratīhāras and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in the second half of the 9th century carved out a small independent principality in the Sarasvatī valley. His Kadi grant tells us that he acquired the *Sārasvata-maṇḍala* by the prowess of his own arms.¹ In the Vadnagar *praśasti* of the reign of Kumārapāla, dated in 1151 A.D., we are told that he took captive ‘the fortune of the kingdom of the Cāpotkaṭa princes.’² Both these statements tend to support the chronicles according to which Mūlarāja captured Aṇahilavāḍa on the Sarasvatī from the last Cāvaḍā prince.

v2.c31.19

⁶ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 187-88 and 375.

v2.c31.20

¹ The Haddala grant however gives Vardhamāna (mod. Wadhwan) as the place of residence of the Cāpa prince Dharaṇīvarāha in 914 A.D.

v2.c31.21

² *Cf.* The recent discovery of a 'Kauśāmbī' in Puṇḍravardhana-*Bhukti* in Bengal; *see EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 37-43. Also *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 333, 341, 343, etc.

v2.c31.22

³ Sometimes in late records 'Aṇahillapāṭaka.' Popularly known as Aṇahilavāḍa or Unhilpoor, mod. Patan on the Saraswatī. According to the chronicles it was founded by Vanarāja, the first Cāvaḍā king of Pañcāsara (*c.* 765-80 A.D.) and named after the shepherd Aṇahila, who pointed out the site of the city; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 151. See also *AAK*, Vol. II, p. 262.

v2.c31.23

⁴ *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 191 ff., etc.

v2.c31.24

⁵ *Cf.* the Rajor stone-inscription (960 A.D.); *EI*, Vol. III, pp. 263-67. Bühler accepted the statement of the chronicles that Rāji was a son of the king of Kanauj who reconquered Gujarat; *IA*, Vol. VI, p. 183.

v2.c31.25

¹ *Nija-bhujopārjita-Sārasvata-maṇḍala, IA*, Vol. VI, p. 191, line 7.

v2.c31.26

² *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 296 and 301, V. 5.

v2.c31.27

According to the chronicles, Mūlarāja did not rest satisfied with his conquest of the Sarasvatī valley, but tried to extend his power in the north, west, and south. His ambition appears to have brought him into conflict with his neighbours. Of these the two most important were the Sapādalakṣīya³ Rājā of Śākambharī⁴ and Bārappa,⁵ king of Lāṭa, sometimes described as the general of Tailapa of Telingana.⁶ The Rājā of Śākambharī has been rightly identified with the Cāhamāna prince Vigraharāja, for whom we have the Harṣa stone-inscription, dated in 973 A.D.,⁷ while Tailapa was apparently the Western Cālukya of that name who ruled from *c.* 973 to 997 A.D.¹ The existence of a Caulukya prince in Lāṭa named Bārappa is revealed by the Surat grants² of Kīrtirāja (*c.* 1018 A.D.) and Trilocanapāla (*c.* 1051 A.D.) which gives us the following list of their predecessors.

v2.c31.28

³ According to Bhagvānlāl Indraji this is the Sanskrit form of the word Siwalik, a range of hills below Dehra Dun, in the Saharanpur district, U. P. He suggested that the Cāhamānas of Śākambharī who were known as rulers of Sapādalakṣa, may have originally come from the Siwalik Hills. *BG*, Vol. I, Part I., p. 157, and fn. 1 on p. 158.

v2.c31.29

⁴ Mod. Sambhar on the east bank of the lake of that name, on the borders of Jaipur and Jodhpur: *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 158, fn. 1. The *Rās* (Vol. I, p. 52) describes this prince as ‘the Rāja of Nagor, or of Sambhur, the country afterwards known as Ujmeer.’

v2.c31.30

⁵ In the *Rās* (Vol. I, p. 54) the name is given as ‘Barap’ while the *PC* (p. 23) gives it as ‘Bārava.’ According to Bhagvanlal the name ‘Dvārappa’ of ‘*Dvāśraya*’ is the Sanskritised form of ‘Bārappa.’ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 159, fn. 1.

v2.c31.31

⁶ In the *Rās* (Vol. I, p. 52), the name is given as ‘Telip the sovereign of Telingānā.’ In the *PC* (p. 23) ‘the monarch that ruled over the Telinga country.’ The statement of the *Sukṛta-saṃkīrtana*, that Tailapa was a general of the king of Kanauj, is apparently a mistake. But see *IA*, Vol. XII, pp. 196 ff.

v2.c31.32

⁷ *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 119 ff. The inscription is also sometimes known as *Haras inscription*.

v2.c31.33

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, table facing p. 428.

v2.c31.34

² *WZKM*, 1893, Band VII pp. 88-89; *IA*, Vol. XII, pp. 196-205.

v2.c31.35

Caulukya……married a princess of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king of Kanauj.

Nimbārka
|
Bārappa³……obtained Lāṭa-deśa
|
Goggirāja⁴……*Maṇḍalika-tilaka*.
|
Kīrtirāja (Saka 940)…*Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara*.
|
Vatsarāja
|
Trilocanapāla (Saka 972)

v2.c31.36

³ Sometimes written 'Vārappa'; see also *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 987, fn. 5.

v2.c31.37

⁴ Sometimes read as Goṅgirāja. Identified by Dhruva with the 'Caulukya noble Gojjirāja' whose daughter Nāyiyalla was married by the Yādava king Tesuka of Chandod: *IA*, Vol. XII, p. 200.

v2.c31.38

As Kīrtirāja (1018 A.D.) is the 2nd in lineal descent from Bārappa, we can safely assign him to the 7th decade of the 10th century A.D. He was therefore a contemporary of Taila II, and must have been appointed by him as his feudatory to guard the 'Baroda gap,' one of the main gateways to the South.⁵ We are told by Merutuṅga that Mūlarāja was attacked simultaneously by Bārappa and the ruler of Sākambharī, and that, unable to resist them, he took shelter in the Kanthā-durga.⁶ Bühler found a confirmation of this statement in the Kadi grant, dated in 987 A.D., which tells us that Mūlarāja resembled 'Tryambaka (Siva) since he took up his residence on a mountain, just as the god dwells on the Mount (Kailāsa).⁷ As Aṇahilapāṭaka, 'the residence of Mūlarāja, was situated in an entirely flat sandy country, and not even within fifty miles of any hill,’ the inference might be made that the *praśastikāra* ‘in his anxiety to find points of resemblance between his patron and the various gods, found nothing more to the purpose than Mūlarāja’s temporary stay on the hill of Kaṇṭhā, which he boldly compared to Śiva’s residing on Kailāsa.’

v2.c31.39

⁵ On its strategic importance see my *Notes on War*, *JL*, 1927, Vol. XIV, pp. 12-15.

v2.c31.40

⁶ *PC*, p. 28. The fort of Kanthā is identified with mod. Kanthkoṭ in the Ea Vāgaḍ division of Kachh; *IA*, Vol. VI, p. 184.

v2.c31.41

⁷ *Tryambaka iva vihitācalāśrayaḥ*. *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 183-84 and 191-92, lines 2-3.

v2.c31.42

There are some differences in the accounts of the chronicles of the Caulukyas and the Cāhamānas about the results of this war. The *Hammīra-Mahākāvya* of Nayacandra tells us that the Cāhamāna Vigraharāja killed Mūlarāja of Gujarat and conquered his country.¹ The *Prabandha-cintāmaṇi* on the other hand, while giving Mūlarāja no credit for victory over the Cāhamāna prince, tries to give the impression that the latter was persuaded or compelled to retire by the former’s bravery and diplomacy.² As Bhagvanlal Indraji concluded long ago, truth may lie midway between the two statements. As the Gujarat chronicle represents Mūlarāja as visiting the Cāhamāna’s camp and saying to him ‘you should keep quiet and not give me a side-blow’ while he was punishing Bārappa, it seems likely that the Caulukya king was really defeated, but on his submission the Cāhamāna prince did not press his advantage.³ In these circumstances the statement of the Gujarat chronicles that Bārappa was defeated and killed by Mūlarāja, seemed improbable to Bhagvanlal and Jackson. But the statement of the *Dvyāśraya* that Mūlarāja and his son Cāmuṇḍa crossed the river Ścabhravatī,⁴ the southern boundary of his dominions, and, entering Lāṭa, defeated and killed Bārappa,⁵ seems to gain some support from the Surat grant of Trilocanapāla mentioned above.⁶ This inscription describes Goggirāja, Bārappa's son and successor, as the 'first home of the family...who relieved his own land like a greater Viṣṇu, the land that was seized upon by powerful enemies like demons.'¹ It may well be that the demon-like enemies of this passage were the Caulukyas, who defeated his father and seized Lāṭa, 'his own land.' The Bijapur stone-inscription of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Hathundi seems to contain another reference to Mūlarāja's wars.² We are there told that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Dhavala (*c.* 960-80 A.D.) gave shelter to the 'lord of the Gurjaras' when Muñjarāja (*c.* 974-92 A.D.) had destroyed Āghāṭa, the pride of Medapāṭa.³ It has been already suggested that this prince of the Gurjaras was probably Mūlarāja. If this identification is accepted, this would afford a proof of the struggle of the Caulukyas with the Paramāras, and give us some idea of the extension of Mūlarāja's dominions towards the east.

v2.c31.43

¹ *IA*, Vol. VII, p. 59.

v2.c31.44

² *PC*, pp. 24-25; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 158.

v2.c31.45

³ *Ibid*, p. 159.

v2.c31.46

⁴ Modern Sabarmati.

v2.c31.47

⁵ According to this authority the Caulukya army advanced as far as Bhṛgukaccha (Broach), and Bārappa was killed by Cāmuṇḍa in single combat, *IA*, Vol IV, p. 111.

v2.c31.48

⁶ See *ante*. *DHNI*, Vol. II, p 938.

v2.c31.49

¹ *IA*, Vol. XII, p. 203, Vs. 10-11.

v2.c31.50

² *EI*, Vol. X, pp. 17-24.

v2.c31.51

³ See my chapter on the *Rāṣṭrakūṭas of N. India*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 561; Āghāṭa is mod. Ahar, near Udaipur station, in Medapāṭa (mod. Mewar).

v2.c31.52

Amongst the other wars of Mūlarāja referred to by the chronicles, only two deserve our serious attention. One of these was his war with Lakṣarāja,⁴ the king of Kaccha.⁵ Merutuṅga tells us that this prince was the son of Phulaḍa and Kāmalatā, the daughter of a Paramāra king called Kīrtirāja.⁶ Lakṣarāja, 'owing to the boon of Yaśorāja,⁷ whom he had propitiated...was altogether invincible. He repulsed eleven times the army of king Mūlarāja.' But in the twelfth encounter Mūlarāja besieged him at Kapilakoṭi, killed him in single combat, and trod on the flowing beard of his foe.¹ If there is any foundation of fact in this story, these hostilities may have begun long before the joint invasion of the Lāṭa and Śākambharī kings. For Mūlarāja’s retirement on that occasion to Kanthkoṭ shows that he was already master of Eastern Cutch.

v2.c31.53

⁴ Also called Lakṣa, Lākhāka and Lākhāka; see *PC*, pp. 27, 28, 150: taken to belong to the Sumra tribe; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 160.

v2.c31.54

⁵ Mod. Cutch.

v2.c31.55

⁶ Not yet identified. But this supplies additional evidence of the hostilities between Mūlarāja and the Paramāras. Could he be a relative of Muñja?

v2.c31.56

⁷ Bhagvanlal mentions him as 'King Yaśovarman of Malwa.' *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 160. But Tawney's Trans. of the *PC* does not connect Yaśorāja with Malwa. Yaśovarman of Malwa ruled *c.* 1134-42 A.D.

v2.c31.57

¹ *PC*, 27-28. The *Vastupāla-Tejaḥpāla Praśasti* of Jayasiṁha (*GOS*, No. X, Appendix I, p. 58 ff., Vs. 5-6) also tells us that Mūlarāja humbled the chief of Kaccha.

v2.c31.58

The *Dvyāśraya* gives a somewhat different description of the death of this ruler of Cutch. In this work Hemacandra connects Mūlarāja’s struggles against the ruler of Cutch and the Ābhīra² chieftain of Saurāṣṭra³ into one episode. He gives us the following account of Grāharipu, the ruler of Sorath. He lived at Vāmanasthalī,⁴ a city resplendent with the flags of Hanumān and Garuḍa, and at Durgapallī.⁵ He ate the flesh of animals and drank spirituous liquor. The ‘Mleccha’ hunted in Revatācala and slew deer at Prabhāsa⁶ which should not be slain. He took the flesh of cows, despised the Brāhmans, and killed the pilgrims going to Prabhāsa. He was rich and powerful, and once compelled the Rājā of Sindhu-*deśa* to pay him tribute. He was in close alliance with the powerful Lākhā of Kaccha-*deśa* and also with the Turks and other *Mlecchas*. We are then told that, being asked by Somanātha (Śiva) in a dream to destroy Grāharipu, Mūlarāja, though on good terms with the Ābhīra ruler, marched against him. In the struggle that followed Grāharipu was taken prisoner, and Lākhā was killed. Mūlarāja then went to Prabhāsa and worshipped the *liṅga* at Somanātha.¹

v2.c31.59

² This family, according to Bhagvanlal Indraji and Jackson, belonged to the Cūḍāsamā tribe, who settled in Sind and Kathiawar between c. 920 and 940 A.D. ‘The Cūḍāsamās are still commonly called *Āhera-rāṇās*’ (*BG*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 137, 139, etc.). This identification is supported by the fact that we have a number of inscriptions of the Cūḍāsamās in Vanthali in Junagarh, which was the capital of the Abhīra chieftain; see *ARB*, pp. 176, 178-79, 316-17 and 803-05; *ASWI*, Vol. II, pp. 159-64. For the close connection of the Abhīras with the Sammas of Sind, see *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 138; also *Elliot*, Vol. I, p. 266. Both the Abhīras and Sammas were beef-eaters; see also *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 38.

v2.c31.60

³ Sometimes ‘Sorath,’ *IA*, Vol. IV, p. 73. Mod. Sorath in the south of Kathiawad.

v2.c31.61

⁴ Mod. Vanthali, 9 miles west of Junagarh; *IA*, Vol. IV, p. 73, fn.; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 160.

v2.c31.62

⁵ Identified by Bhagvanlal with mod. Junagarh.

v2.c31.63

⁶ Mod. Somnath Patan, also called Veraval.

v2.c31.64

¹ *IA*, Vol. IV, 72-77.

v2.c31.65

There is no epigraphic support for Hemacandra's account of this war of Mūlarāja. The latter's pilgrimage to Somanātha however is supported by Merutuṅga who tells us that Mūlarāja went "every Monday on a pilgrimage to Someśvarapattana,² out of devotion to the god Śiva, and Somanātha was so pleased with his devotion that after informing him of his intention, he came to the town of Maṇḍalī. The king caused there to be built the Mūleśvara temple." Bühler has pointed out that this Mūleśvara is evidently to be identified with Mūlanāthadeva to which Mūlarāja assigned the village of Kamboïkā by his Kadi grant, dated V.S. 1043.³

v2.c31.66

² This is also found in Bālacandra's *Vasanta-vilāsa* (*GOS*, No. VII, 1917), III, 6.

v2.c31.67

³ *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 191 ff.; *ibid*, p. 184.

v2.c31.68

Jayasimha's *Vastupāla-Tejaḥpāla Praśasti* supplies us with a fact which may indicate that Mūlarāja waged war with yet another power. He tells us that the Caulukya prince was always waited upon by 36 *Rāja-kulas*, and that he 'put to agitation the Sindhurāja.'⁴ It is difficult to identify this ruler of Sind; but he may have been one of the later members of the Habbārī dynasty of Manṣūra (*c.* 912-76 A.D.).⁵

v2.c31.69

⁴ *GOS*, No. X, *Appendix*, pp. 58 ff., Vs. 5-7.

v2.c31.70

⁵ See *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 28.

v2.c31.71

Of the time of Mūlarāja we have the following published records:

v2.c31.72

(1) *Baroda grant.*—Found in the possession of a man at Patan (Anahilavada). It records a grant of 'a plough of land' to Vacchakācārya in Pāladjya-*grāma* in the Gambhūtā-*viṣaya*, on the occasion of a solar eclipse in V.S. 1030 (*c.* 974 A.D.). The donor was Mūlarāja, the *Dūtaka* the *Mahāsandhivigrahika* Śrī-Jaya.⁶

v2.c31.73

⁶ Noticed by H. H. Dhruva, *WZKM*, Vol. V, p. 300.

v2.c31.74

(2) *Kadi grant.*—Found lying in the Gaikvāḍī *Kacherī* at Kadi, the chief town of the Uttara Mahals. It contains 22 lines, incised on two plates. The inscription opens with a description of the donor's pedigree. Then we are told that *M.-Rāji-sutaḥ-Caulukikānvayo M.-Mūlarāja*, while residing at Anahilapāṭaka, on the occasion of a solar eclipse in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1043 (*c.* 987 A.D.), granted *Ardhaṣṭama* of Moḍhera in the village of Kamboïkā to the illustrious Mūlanāthadeva, established at Maṇḍalī, in the Varddhi-*viṣaya*. Before making the grant the king worshipped Rudramahālaya. At the end of the first plate there is a figure of a sitting bull.¹

v2.c31.75

¹ Edited by Bühler, *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 191-93. Note the form *Caulukikānvaya*.

v2.c31.76

(3) *Balera grant.*—Found in the possession of a Brāhman at Balera, in Sanchor district, Jodhpur State. It contains 21 lines, incised on two plates. The inscription opens with the date (V.) *Saṁvat* 1051 (*c.* 995 A.D.). We are then told that on that date *Pb.-M .-P.-Mūlarājadeva*, from Aṇahilapāṭaka, granted the Varaṇaka-*grāma* in the Satyapura-*maṇḍala* to the illustrious Dīrghācārya, son of Durlabhācārya, who had come from Kanyakubja, on the occasion of a lunar eclipse. The donor worships the *Ambikā-pati* (Śiva). The grant was written by the *Kāyastha* Kāñcana. The *Dūtaka* was the *mahattama* Śivarāja.²

v2.c31.77

² First noticed in 1891 by Dhruva, *WZKM*, Vol. V, pp. 300-01, and then by Devi Prasad in *JASB*, 1898, p. 168. Finally edited by Sten Konow, *EI*, Vol. X, pp. 76-79. The editor in his introductory remarks accepts the evidence of the Deoli and Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III (A.D 940-56) as proof of Mūlarāja's war with the Kalacuris. For a different interpretation see my chapter on the *Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras*, DHNI, Vol. I, pp. 588-89.

v2.c31.78

The three inscriptions noticed above give us dates from 974 to 995 A.D., a period of 21 years. According to Merutuṅga, however, Mūlarāja ruled for 55 years. This author gives V.S. 993 as the date of Mūlarāja's accession, and V.S. 1050 for that of his son Cāmuṇḍa.³ This would actually give the former a reign of about 57 years (*c.* 937-994 A.D.).⁴ The *Vicāraśreṇi* of the same author however gives the reign-period of this prince as 35 years extending from 1017 to 1052 V.S.

v2.c31.79

³ *PC*, pp. 23 and 29. The text of the different MSS. of Merutuṅga's work must be corrupt. For the *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 162, gives the dates from Merutuṅga as V.S. 998 (A.D. 942) to 1053 (A.D. 997). I follow Tawney's English version of the text.

v2.c31.80

⁴ The *AAK* (Vol. II, p. 260) gives the reign-period as 56 years. The *MA*. (Trans, by Bird, London, 1835, p. 143) also gives 56.

v2.c31.81

(A.D. 961-96).¹ As we have no dated record of the reign of the next king, we cannot verify the statement of this chronicle; but its moderate estimate of the reign-period seems to be more consistent with the fact that Mūlarāja could scarcely have been a young man when he overthrew his uncle’s power. But the recently discovered Sambhar inscription of Jayasiṁha which gives V.S. 998 (*c.* 941 A.D.) as the date of Mūlarāja seems to indicate that he really reigned for more than half a century.²

v2.c31.82

¹ *JBRAS*, Vol. IX, p. 155. I have a suspicion that what Bhau Daji calls Merutuṅga's *Therāvalī* (*Sthavirāvalī*) and Bhagvanlal *Vicāraśreṇī* may be the same work. Or is the former a separate chapter of the *Vicāraśreṇī*? *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 162.

v2.c31.83

² *IA*, 1929, pp. 234-36, V. 9.

v2.c31.84

The period of about 25 years (*c.* 996-1022 A.D.) which intervened between Mūlarāja’s death³ and the accession of Bhīma I, was inglorious. No epigraphic record has so far been discovered for the reign of any of the princes that ruled during this period, and we depend mainly on the chronicles for the incidents of their reigns. According to the *Prabandha-cintāmaṇi*, Mūlarāja was succeeded by his son Cāmuṇḍa in 1050 V.S. He reigned for about 13 years, and was succeeded by Vallabharāja in 1065 V.S.⁴ This king after investing the fortress of Dhārā in the country of Mālava, died of small-pox.⁵ He acquired the titles “subduer of kings, as Śiva subdued the god of Love.” (*Rāja-madana-Śaṅkara*) and “Shaker of the world” (*Jagajjhampana*). He reigned only for five months and twenty-nine days.⁶ Then Durlabharāja was crowned king in 1065 V.S.

v2.c31.85

³ *Ibid.* The *Dvyāśraya* says Mūlarāja 'mounted the funeral pile' on the banks of the Sarasvatī. Does it mean that he committed suicide, like some other Indian princes of this period?

v2.c31.86

⁴ *PC*, p. 29, gives V. S. 1055 as the date which marked the end of the reign of Cāmuṇḍa, and then gives 1065 as the date when Vallabharāja assumed the sovereignty. I think 1055 is a mistake for 1065. See the Text (Sanskrit) of the work. (Ed. by Rāmacandra Dīnanātha, Bombay, 1888, p. 48) where also the same dates are repeated.

v2.c31.87

⁵ *Śīti-rogeṇa*. The *Dryāśraya* has ‘the disease called *Śītalā*,’ *IA*, Vol. IV, p. 112. His fight with Mālava is also found in the *Kīrti-kaumudī* (II, 11) and *Sukṛta-saṁkīrtana* (ii, 13). See *EI*, Vol. I, p. 294.

v2.c31.88

⁶ The *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 162 says that the *PC* gives Cāmuṇḍa a reign of 6 months. This must be a mistake: see *IA*, Vol. VI, p. 184, where Bühler rightly assigns 6 months to Vallabharāja.

v2.c31.89

He built a palace of seven storeys and a clock tower at Pattana and a temple of Madana-śaṅkara for the welfare of his brother Vallabharāja. He reigned 12 years, and then in V. S. 1077¹ established on the throne his brother's son, Bhīma.² The *Vicāraśreṇi*³ by the same author gives the list of Mūlarāja's successors as follows: his son Vallabharāja 14 years, V.S. 1052-66: his brother Durlabha, 12 years, V. S. 1066-78. According to the *Dvyāśraya*, Mūlarāja was succeeded by Cāmuṇḍa, who had 3 sons, *viz.*, Vallabharāja, Durlabharāja, and Nāgarāja. "Once on a time Cāmuṇḍarāja, inflamed by sensual passion did wrong to his sister Cāciṇidevī; to expiate this sin he placed Vallabharāja on the throne and went on a pilgrimage to Vārāṇasī. By the way the Rāja of Mālava plundered his umbrella and other insignia of royalty.⁴ Cāmuṇḍa having accomplished his pilgrimage, returned to Pattana" and asked his son to punish the Malava prince. Vallabha started on his expedition to Malava but died on the way (A. D. 1010). Cāmuṇḍa thereupon seated Durlabha on the throne and retired to Śukla-tīrtha, on the Narmadā, where he died. Durlabha married his sister to Mahendra, the king of Maru-deśa.⁵ He and his brother also married respectively Durlabhadevī and another princess, the two sisters of Mahendrarāja. According to Hemacandra, Durlabhadevī was won by Durlabha in a *Svayaṃvara*; but to retain possession of the princess he had to fight a number of other claimants, amongst whom were the kings of Aṅga, Kāśi, Avanti, Cedi-deśa,¹ Kuru-deśa, Hūṇa-deśa, Mathurā, and Vindhya.² At last Durlabha abdicated his throne in favour of his nephew, Bhīma, the son of Nāgarāja, and with Nāgarāja ‘made *Svargavāsa* at Pattan.’³

v2.c31.90

¹ *PC*, pp. 29-30. Bühler however gives the date as S. 1058 wrongly for 1078; see *IA*, Vol. VI, p. 185.

v2.c31.91

² The *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 163 says that the text of this work mentions Bhīma as the son of Durlabha. But Tawney's version gives the relationship as nephew.

v2.c31.92

³ Or *Therāvalī*?

v2.c31.93

⁴ The *BG* (Vol. I, Part I, p. 162) mentions the name of the Malava kings as Muñja. But this does not occur in the text. Bhagvanlal probably has taken the name from the very similar story given in the *PC* (p. 38) in connection with the pilgrimage of Durlabha to Benares.

v2.c31.94

⁵ Also called king of Nadvla-deśa (*i.e.*, Naḍḍūla-deśa). He is certainly the Naḍḍūla (Nadol) Cāhamāna Mahendra (c. 1020 A. D.) See *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the Cāhamānas. Also *EI*, Vol. IX, p. 63 ff.; Vol. XI, p. 68 ff.

v2.c31.95

¹ Wrongly given in *IA*, IV, p. 112, as ‘Vaidi-deśa.’

v2.c31.96

² Wrongly given in *IA*, IV, p. 112, as Andhra-deśa.

v2.c31.97

³ Text (ed. by A. V. Kathavate), pp. 448ff.; see also *IA*, Vol. IV, pp. 111-14. Bhagvanlal sees in this story of the voluntary joint death of the two brothers the hidden hand of Bhīma; see *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 163.

v2.c31.98

To this account we may add the following details found in the inscriptions of their successors, and Muslim sources. The Vadnagar *praśasti* of the reign of Kumārapāla (V.S. 1208)⁴ tells us that Mūlarāja was succeeded by Cāmuṇḍarāja. “Inhaling even from afar the breeze, perfumed with the ichor of his (Cāmuṇḍa’s) excellent elephants, the illustrious Sindhu-rāja fled together with his own elephants that were cowed by the smell of (their opponent’s) rut, and vanished in such wise that even all trace of the fame of that prince was lost.”⁵ This statement is not incredible in view of the fact that Sind formed the western border of the Caulukya kingdom. If there is any truth in this statement, we must assume that Cāmuṇḍa by his hostility to the Sind rulers merely carried on the policy laid down by his father.⁶ It is however difficult to identify this ruler of Sind. I can only suggest that he was probably one of the local rulers of Manṣūra who may have ruled there between the Habbārī dynasty and the Sumras.⁷ Abu'l- Faz̤l assigns to Cāmuṇḍa a reign of 13 years, but the *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī* gives the figure as 12 years and four months and 2 days.¹ In view of this approximate agreement of the Hindu and Muslim chronicles we may assign to Cāmuṇḍa a reign of 12 or 13 years and place him *c.* 996-1009 A.D.

v2.c31.99

⁴ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 293ff.

v2.c31.100

⁵ *Ibid*, pp. 297 and 302, V. 6. Kielhorn at first took Sindhurāja to mean king of Sind, but later on in the ‘*Errata and Corrigenda*’ (*ibid*, p. 481) said “possibly the king of Sind but more probably Sindhurāja of Mālva.” As Muñja seems to have died some time between 994 and 997 A. D. (*ibid*, p. 228), there is no inherent impossibility in Sindhurāja of Mālava being a contemporary of Cāmuṇḍa. But in view of the fact that Mūlarāja also fought with a Sindhurāja I prefer his former view. See also the Arthuna stone inscription of Paramāra Cāmuṇḍarāja (A. D. 1080) where Sindhurāja must be taken to mean ‘prince of Sind.’ See *EI*, Vol. XIV. The *Kumārapāla-carita* says that Cāmuṇḍa killed Sindhurāja in battle; see I, 31.

v2.c31.101

⁶ See above, p. 947.

v2.c31.102

⁷ See *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 28.

v2.c31.103

¹ *AAK*, Vol. II, p. 260; *BHG*, p. 27. *MA*, Trans. by Bird, p. 143. Text edited by Nawal Ali, Baroda, 1928, Vol. I, p. 29. Abu'l-Faz̤l and 'Alī Muḥammad Khān make Cāmaṇḍ (چامند), or Jāmand (جامند) the contemporary of Maḥmūd of Ghazni when he invaded Somnath. This is evidently a mistake; for epigraphic records and the *Kāmil* *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 249) show that the Caulukya ruler at that time was Bhīma (I).

v2.c31.104

According to the Vadnagar *praśasti* Cāmuṇḍa was succeeded by his son Vallabharāja. He 'astonished the circle of earth by his bold deeds. Densely dark smoke, rising from the empire of the Mālava king (*Mālava-bhūpa-cakra*) who quaked on hearing of his marching, indicated the spread of the fire of his anger.'² According to Abu'l-Faz̤l 'Balabha' reigned for 6 months,³ while 'Alī Muḥammad Khān assigns him a reign of 7 months.⁴ As his war with Mālava is confirmed by both literary and epigraphic tradition we may accept it as real. The ruler of Mālava is probably to be identified with Sindhurāja (*c.* 997-1010), the brother of the Paramāra Muñja. The support of the Muslim tradition seems to indicate that the Hindu chroniclers were right in assigning a short reign to Vallabha.⁵ The fact that he died so soon and was succeeded in the course of the same year by his brother Durlabha, seems to explain the omission of his name in some of the later Caulukya inscriptions.⁶

v2.c31.105

² *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 297 and 302, V. 7.

v2.c31.106

³ *AAK*, Vol. II, p. 260.

v2.c31.107

⁴ *MA*, Text, p. 29, Trans., p. 143; also *BHG*, p. 27. This text spells the name as Balyā (بليا).

v2.c31.108

⁵ The *Vicāra-śreṇī* is obviously wrong when it omits Cāmuṇḍa and assigns Vallabha 14 years adding the 13 years of his predecessor to the 6 months of his reign.

v2.c31.109

⁶ Of Bhīma II (*c.* 1178-1241 A.D.), see *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 194-96. Another reason of the omission may be due to the fact that his father Cāmuṇḍa may have been living when he died.

v2.c31.110

We shall not therefore be far from the truth if we assume that Durlabha ascended the throne *c.* 1009-10 A.D. The only interesting fact mentioned about this king is contained in the statement of the Vadnagar *praśasti* that he caused 'the destruction of the Lāṭa country.'¹ The chronicles of Gujarat generally credit Mūlarāja I with a conquest of the Lāṭa country. But the existence of the Lāṭa princes even after the death of Mūlarāja has been revealed by the Surat grant of Kīrtirāja (dated in A.D. 1018),² who must have been ruling in Lāṭa when it was invaded by Durlabha. That Durlabha did not succeed in completely destroying the Caulukya principality of Lāṭa is proved by the Surat grant of Trilocanapāla (A.D. 1051), the grandson of Kīrtirāja.³ The *A'īn-i-Akbarī* assigns to Durlabha a reign of 11 years and 6 months, while the *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī* gives him only 8 years.⁴ As Hemacandra and Abu'l-Faẕl nearly agree in assigning him a period of about 12 years we may refer him to the period c. 1010-22 A.D.⁵

v2.c31.111

¹ *Lār(ṭ?)a-vasudhā-bhañja*, *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 297 and 302, V. 8. Note also the statement in the same verse, that he 'was not easily accessible to the wives of other men,' and compare it with *Kumārapāla-carita*, I, 33-34, which seems to shew he really took another's wife by force.

v2.c31.112

² See above, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 938.

v2.c31.113

³ *Ibid.*

v2.c31.114

⁴ *AAk*, Vol. II, p. 260; *MA*, Trans., p. 143; *ibid*, text, p. 29. *BHG*, p. 27. In the Muslim account he is wrongly stated to be the nephew of Vallabha. The *MA* spells the name as **Dūla** ([Arabic script]), perhaps representing the Prakrit Dūlaha ([Arabic script]).

v2.c31.115

⁵ As Muñja was certainly dead by the year 997 A.D. the story of *PC* (pp. 29-30) which makes Durlabha a contemporary of Muñja is wrong. His date for the accession of Bhīma, V.S. 1077 (c. 1021 A.D.) may also be inaccurate. The *Therāvalī* gives this date as V.S. 1078.

v2.c31.116

According to all our sources, literary and epigraphic, Durlabha was succeeded by his nephew Bhīmadeva, the son of Nāgarāja. The following epigraphic records are known for his reign:

v2.c31.117

(1) *Radhanpur grant.*—Procured from the Radhanpur Durbar in North Gujarat. Its find-spot is unknown. It contains 23 lines incised on two plates. The inscription opens with the date Vikrama Saṁvat 1086 (A.D. 1029). It then drecors that *M.-Bhīmadeva*, from his residence at Aṇahilapāṭaka after worshipping *Bhavānī-pati* (*Śiva*), granted the village of Mansūra, situated in the Ghaḍahaḍikā-*dvādaśa* in the Kaccha-*maṇḍala*, to the *Bhaṭṭāraka* Ajapāla. The *Dūtaka* of the grant was *Mahāsandhivigrahika* Caṇḍa Śarman, and it was written by the *Kāyastha* Vaṭeśvara.¹

v2.c31.118

¹ Edited by Bühler, *IA*, Vol. VI, pp. 193-94 ; see also *BI*, p. 194. *Cf.* Manṣūrah in Sind.

v2.c31.119

(2) *Mundaka grant.*—Found together with five other grants in the possession of the widow of the late Dr. Gerson Da Cunha. Its find-spot is unknown. It is incised on two plates of copper held together by a ring of the same metal. It records the grant of eleven plough-measures of land in the village of Muṇḍaka which was included in the *Viṣaya* of Vardhi, to the Brāhman Vāsudeva, son of Balabhadra, by *M.*-Bhīmadeva, at Aṇahilapāṭaka, in V. S. 1086 (A.D. 1030).²

v2.c31.120

² Noticed in *ASI, WC.*, 1920, p. 54. For text and translation see *JBRAS*, Vol. XX, p. 49.

v2.c31.121

(3) *Bombay Royal Asiatic Society's grant.*—Deposited in the Library of the Bombay branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. There is no information as to where it was originally found. It contains 16 lines, incised on two plates. It opens with the date (V.) *Saṁvat* (10)93 (A.D. 1036),³ and then records that the donor of No. 2, from Aṇahilapāṭaka, having worshipped (*Śiva*) the lord of Bhavānī, granted one plough of land in the village of Sahasacāṇā in Kaccha-*maṇḍala* to the Brāhman Govinda. The writer and the *Dūtaka* of the grant are the same as in No. 1.⁴

v2.c31.122

³ The date is given as 93. Fleet took it to be Siṁha-Saṁvat 93 (A.D. 1207), and referred it to Bhīma II ; *IA*, XVIII, pp. 108-09. Bühler first (*IA*, Vol. VI, p. 185) took it to be a case of omitted hundreds. But see Fleet in *IA*, Vol. XIX, pp. 853-54.

v2.c31.123

⁴ First noticed in a Gujarati History of Cutch (p. 17) ; see *IA*, Vol. VI, p. 185 fn. It was edited by Fleet in *IA*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 108-10. But he took it to be a grant of Bhīma II. I think Hultzsch, Bühler, Bhagvanlal Indraji, and Jackson were right in taking the grant to belong to Bhīma I. The fact that the names of the *Maṇḍala*, the *Dūtaka* and the writer are the same as in No. (1) seems to be conclusive.

v2.c31.124

(4) *Abu stone-inscription.*—Incised in the Vimala temple on Mount Abu, in the Sirohi State, Rajputana. It is ‘ a short inscription of a minister of the Caulukya Bhīmadeva I,’ dated in V. S. 1119 (A.D. 1062).⁵

v2.c31.125

⁵ Noticed by Kielhorn in *EI*, Vol. IX, p. 148.

v2.c31.126

The dates in these four inscriptions range from *c.* 1029 to 1062 A.D.¹ According to Merutuṅga, Bhīma I ascended the throne of Aṇahilapāṭaka in V. S. 1077² or 1078.³ As both the Hindu and Muslim chronicles allot to him a reign of 42 years⁴ we may with some certainty assign him to the period *c.* 1022-64 A.D. The *Prabandha-cintāmaṇi* supplies us with some details of the relationship between him and his contemporaries, the Paramāra Bhoja (*c.* 1010-1055 A.D.) and the Kalacuri (Lakṣmī)-Karṇa (*c.* 1041-70 A.D.). We are told that at first ‘a league of friendship subsisted’ between Bhīma and Bhoja. But the peace was broken through the hostile activities of Bhoja. The first invasion of Gujarat by Bhoja was diverted to the south against Tailapa by the intrigues of Ḍāmara, Bhīma’s minister of peace and war.⁵ But the second time, when Bhīma had marched to conquer the ‘country of Sindh,’ Kulacandra,⁶ Bhoja's commander-in-chief, swooped down upon his capital Aṇahilapāṭaka ‘sacked the august city, and having caused cowries to be sown at the gate of the clock-tower of the palace, extorted a record of victory’ (*Jaya-patra*). In retaliation Bhīma sent soldiers into the country of his enemy and once very nearly caught him when the latter was worshipping his family goddess in a temple in a suburb of the city of Dhārā. Bhīma however could not achieve any material success against Bhoja, till the latter incurred the hostility of the Ḍāhala king Karṇa. The latter attacked Bhoja, in company with 136 princes, ‘and at the same time he invited Bhīma to attack the country of Mālava in the rear, promising him the half of Bhoja’s kingdom. Then king Bhoja, being attacked by those two kings, lost his pride, as a snake, overcome with a charm, loses its poison. And then a sudden corporeal malady took hold of Bhoja,’ of which he died. After this Karṇa ‘broke down the fort and took all the wealth of Bhoja.’ But owing to the intrigues of Dāmara, Karṇa while sleeping after the sack of Dhārā, was taken prisoner by the former and had to give Bhīma ‘a golden shrine, and the lord Śiva associated with Gaṇeśa.’¹

v2.c31.127

¹ Mt. Abu Vimala temple inscription of V.S. 1878, contains a date for Bhīma I. We are told that the temple of Ṛṣabha was founded in V.S. 1088 (*c.* 1031 A.D.) by a certain Vimala who had been appointed *Daṇḍapati* at Arbuda by Bhīmadeva (I), see *EI*, Vol. IX, p. 149.

v2.c31.128

² *PC*, p. 30.

v2.c31.129

³ *Therāvalī*, *JBRAS*, Vol. IX, p. 155.

v2.c31.130

⁴ *JBRAS*, Vol. IX, p. 157; *AAK*, p. 260. *MA*, Trans., p. 143. *BHG*, p. 27.

v2.c31.131

⁵ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 164, fn. 2. Tawney translates ‘diplomatic agent,’ *PC*, p. 44.

v2.c31.132

⁶ He was a Digambara Jain.

v2.c31.133

¹ *PC*, pp. 36-77. Among the other romantic stories in this work may be mentioned the visit of Bhīma to the court of Bhoja in the disguise of a Brāhman (*ibid*, pp. 47 ff.). The story of the birth of Karṇa (*ibid*, p. 72) has a similarity with the Muslim story of the birth of Lakṣmaṇasena (*TN*, Vol. I, pp. 554-55); see also *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 372. The defeat of Bhoja by Bhīma is also referred to by the *Vasanta-vilāsa* of Bālacandra (*GOS*, No. VII, 1917), iii, 15.

v2.c31.134

The *Dvyāśraya* seems to confirm this story of Bhīma’s war with Karṇa. We are told that Bhīma’s fame spread to distant countries. ‘The Rāja of Puṇḍra-deśa sent presents; the Rāja of Andhra-deśa sent him a necklace; Bhīma’s fame spread into Magadha-deśa.’ Then some one said to Bhīma, “O Rāja! on the earth the Sindhu prince, and the king of Cedi in their pride alone regard not your fame.’’ Hearing this report of his ‘spy’ Bhīma with his army went to the Punjab ‘near to Sindh,’ where ‘five rivers flow together.’ The Sind king Hammuka, having conquered his enemies, ‘slept in peace.’ But Bhīma, having crossed the mighty stream of the five rivers by building a bridge, defeated and conquered the prince of Sind. Then ‘Bhīma went to Cedi-deśa conquering the princes as he went. When he heard of Bhīma’s approach, the Rāja of Cedi collected an army of Bhillas and Mlecchas.’ But after long considerations he at last decided to make peace with Bhīma. This he purchased by handing over to Dāmodara, the Vakil of Bhīma, a ‘gold *Meru*.’ ‘Bhīma having thus conquered returned to Pattan.’²

v2.c31.135

² Text, pp. 615 ff.; *IA*, Vol. IV, pp. 114 and 282.

v2.c31.136

It is difficult to know the proportion of truth and fables in these stories. But no doubt they contain some elements of fact. We have seen that both Mūlarāja and Cāmuṇḍa fought with the rulers of Sind. It is therefore quite possible that Bhīma also carried on the policy laid down by the founder of his dynasty.

v2.c31.137

Bhoja's struggle against the Gurjaras, Cedis, and other enemies among whom Bhīma was prominent, is referred to by the Udaipur *praśasti* of the Paramāras of Mālava.¹ The Vadnagar *praśasti* distinctly says that Bhīma's horses, which were “supremely skilled in accomplishing the five paces (called *dhārā*), quickly gained Dhārā, the capital of the emperor of Mālava.''² Though the Udaipur³ and the Nagpur⁴ *praśastis* do not definitely associate the names of Karṇa and Bhīma with Bhoja's death they clearly indicate that Bhoja was “submerged” by ‘floods’ which for a time overwhelmed Dhārā and its rulers. There is no epigraphic evidence to show that Karṇa was defeated by Bhīma. But it is not unlikely, in view of the fact that he, like Bhoja, also had a meteoric fall, and Bhīma may have had a share in bringing about the downfall of the Kalacuri empire. Though the chronicles are silent on Bhīma's relations with the Cāhamānas, epigraphic evidence shows that he had reversed his predecessor's friendly policy towards the Naḍḍūla Cāhamānas. The Sundha Hill inscription of Cāciga (V.S. 1319)⁵ tells us that the Naḍḍūla princes Ahila and his paternal uncle Aṇahilla defeated the Gurjara king Bhīma I. In the same inscription, the latter's son Bālaprasāda⁶ is said to have compelled Bhīma to liberate from prison a king named Kṛṣṇarāja. Kielhorn has rightly identified this Kṛṣṇarāja with the Paramāra of that name, who ruled in Abu *c.* 1060-67 A.D.⁷ An inscription in the Vimala temple on Mt.

v2.c31.138

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 235 and 238, V. 19. See also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 866.

v2.c31.139

² *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 297 and 302, V. 9.

v2.c31.140

³ *Ibid*, pp. 236 and 238, V. 21.

v2.c31.141

⁴ *Ibid*, Vol. II, pp. 185 and 192, V. 32.

v2.c31.142

⁵ *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 70 ff. See *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the *Cāhamānas*.

v2.c31.143

⁶ | |

v2.c31.144

⁷ For his Bhinmal inscriptions, dated in 'V. S. 1117 and 1123, see *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 472-74. See also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 911-18.

v2.c31.145

| (5) Aśvapāla | (7) Aṇahilla. |
| \| | \| |
| (6) Ahila | (8) Bālaprasāda. |

v2.c31.146

Abu shows that Abu was ruled by Vimala, the *Daṇḍapati* of Bhīma I, in V.S. 1088 (*c.* 1031 A.D.).¹

v2.c31.147

¹ *EI*, Vol. IX, p. 149. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 950, fn. 1.

v2.c31.148

But the most important incident in the history of Bhīma which has been omitted by the chroniclers and the inscriptions, is the famous raid of Maḥmūd of Ghazni on the temple of Somanātha (mod. Somnath) in 1025 A.D. Our earliest Persian source for this expedition, the recently published *Kitāb Zain ul Akhbār*² gives the following account of this expedition: "In Hindūstān, on the shores of the sea, there is a big city called Sūmnāt, which is as sacred to the Hindus as Mecca to the Muslims. In it there are a large number of idols made of gold and silver and the idol *Manāt*, which in the days of the Prophet was taken out of Ka‘ba and despatched to India,³ through ‘Adan......The way to it was very perilous and dangerous and full of hardships......When Maḥmūd arrived near the city and the Samans and the Brāhmans saw him, they began to pray round the idols, and the commander⁴ of that city came out and sitting in a boat with his family and relatives went into the sea and alighted on an island; and he remained there as long as the Muslim army remained in that country. When the Muslim army arrived near the city, its inhabitants closed the gates and began fighting; but after only a few days they opened the gates, and the army of Amīr Maḥmūd went in and killed many infidels......Maḥmūd then ordered the Mu‘azzin to go on the top of the *derā* and call the faithful to prayer......All the idols were broken, burnt and destroyed, and the *Manāt* stone⁵ was taken out of its roots and broken to pieces; part of it was placed on camels and brought to Ghazni and placed outside the mosque there. There was a treasure under¹ the idols. He carried away that treasure and got a huge amount of wealth, consisting of silver idols and their jewels……From that place Maḥmūd turned back, and the reason was that Param Deo,² who was the king of the Hindus, was in the way, and the Amīr Maḥmūd feared lest this great victory might be spoiled. He did not come back by the direct way, but took a guide and, marching by the way of Manṣūra and the bank of the Sīhūn, went towards Multān. His soldiers suffered heavily on the way both from the dryness of the desert and from the Jatts of Sind. Many animals and a large number of men of the Muslim army perished on the way, and most of the beasts of burden died, till at last they reached Multān.'"³

v2.c31.149

² According to the editor it was written *c.* 440 A. H. (1048 A D.). Ed. by Muḥammad Nazim, Iranschahr, Berlin, 1928. Muslim historians generally spell ‘Somanātha’ as Sūmnāt (سومنات).

v2.c31.150

³ This story is also found in *TA* (Trans., p. 15). Niẓām-ud-Dīn after giving the story says: "But it appears from the ancient books of the Brāhmans that this was not so. This idol has been the object of adoration of the Brāhmans from the time of Kishan (Krishna) which was four thousand years ago."

v2.c31.151

⁴ Sālār (سالار).

v2.c31.152

⁵ Sang (سنگ).

v2.c31.153

¹ *Zīr* (زير).

v2.c31.154

² (پھرم دیو).

v2.c31.155

³ Pp. 86-87 of the text. I am indebted for this translation to Dr. Mirza, Head of the Department of Arabic, Lucknow University.

v2.c31.156

The next important source in order of time for this expedition is the Arabic *Ta'rīkh-ul-Kāmil*⁴ of Ibn Athīr. This historian tells us that Maḥmūd started from Multān with 30,000 horse, besides volunteers "on the 10th Sha‘bān (416 A.H., 1025 A.D.). He carried with him provisions (water and corn) on 30,000 camels, as the way from Multān to India lay through a barren desert without inhabitants or food. After crossing the desert he captured a fort 'full of people, in which place there were wells,' and reached Anahilwāra at the beginning of Zu'lqa'da. The chief of Anahilwāra, "fled hastily, and, abandoning his city, went to a certain fort for safety and to prepare for war. Maḥmūd pushed on for Sūmnāt." After passing through a waterless desert and capturing several forts on his way, he reached Dabalwārah,⁵ two days' journey from Sūmnāt. Arriving at Sūmnāt on Thursday in the middle of Zu'lqa'da, he was desperately resisted by the Hindus for one day; but on the second it was captured with great slaughter, over 50,000 being slain. "After the capture of Sūmnāt, Maḥmūd received intelligence that Bhīm, the chief of Anhilwāra, had gone to the fort of Kandahat, which is situated about forty parasangs from Sūmnāt between that place and the desert. He marched thither, and when he came in front of the place, he questioned some men who were hunting as to the tide. From them he learned that there was a practicable ford, but that if the wind blew a little, he might be submerged. Maḥmūd prayed to the Almighty and then entered the water. He and his forces passed over safely and drove the enemy out of the place. Thence he returned, intending to proceed against Manṣūra."¹

v2.c31.157

⁴ Written in *c.* 628 A.H. (1230 A.D.).

v2.c31.158

⁵ According to *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 166, fn. 2, 'apparently Delvāda near Unā.'

v2.c31.159

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 165-68; *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 249. *Kāmil*, Vol. IX, pp. 240 ff.

First 158 of 843 passages. Read on

Linked texts (21)