The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c34.24

v2.c34.24

This brings us to the discussion of Bappa's date and his position in the genealogy of the Guhila-putras. In the Atpur inscription of Śaktikumāra (V. S. 1034), the earliest epigraphic record which supplies a regular genealogy of the family, the name of Bappa does not occur at all. It traces the family's pedigree from Guhadatta. This does not however prove the non-existence of Bappa. For it is recognised that Bappa is not really a proper name. Tod held that "it signified merely 'a child,'" ¹ while Crooke is of opinion that 'it is the old Prākṛt form of *bāp* (father)' ² D. R. Bhandarkar has suggested that it is the same as ‘Bāpā’ or ‘Bāvā,’ a respectful term for ascetics.³ This designation attached itself to the real founder of the Guhilaputras because he was a disciple of the Śaiva ascetic Hāritarāśi and the 'Diwan' of the god Ekaliṅga. Crooke's view however seems to be supported by the fact that in Pallava history, the earliest known ruler is designated by the title Bappa-deva in the Hirahadgalli grants of his son Śivaskandavarman.⁴ Whatever may be the value of these various suggestions, we accept the view that Bappa was only a *biruda* and not the prince's real name. Who was then this ruler and what was his position in the family's pedigree? Certain inscriptions of the 14th century and later place Bappa or Bappaka just before Guhila.⁵ This must however be wrong for a stone inscription of Naravāhana, dated in V.S. 1028 and found on the wall of the 'Nātha's mandir' near Ekaliṅgajī's temple, near Udaipur⁶ describes Bappaka the ruler of Nāgahrada⁷ as the 'moon amongst the princes of the Guhila family' (*Guhila-gōtra-narendra-candra*). It is therefore impossible that Bappa was a predecessor of Guhila.