The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c34.32

v2.c34.32

The Kumbhalgarh inscription of Rāṇā Kumbha, dated in V.S. 1517 (A.D. 1460), mentions Bappa as the fifth prince between Nāga and Aparājita.¹ As this place is given to Śīla by the Atpura and all other records, including the Sadadi inscription of Kumbha (V.S. 1496), the conclusion seems to be forced upon us that this *praśastikāra* of Kumbha's reign really believed that Bappa was a *biruda* of Śīla. Tod accepted the identity of these two princes, though on somewhat different grounds.² But there are certain difficulties in accepting this identification. An Udaipur inscription gives the date V.S. 718 (661 A.D.) for Aparājita, the son of Śīla.³ But the *Ekaliṅgajī-māhātmya*, composed during the reign of Kumbha (Vs. 19-20), gives V.S. 810 (*c.* 753 A.D.) as Bappa's date. In another work bearing the same name which was composed during the reign of Kumbha's son Rāyamalla, the same year is given as the date of Bappa's abdication in favour of his son. As in the first work the verse begins with *Yad uktam purātanaiḥ kavibhiḥ*, D. R. Bhandarkar thought that the date was copied from some older record, and as such deserving of some credence. "As the date for Aparājita is V.S. 718 and for Allaṭa V.S. 1010 we have 292 years for 12 generations; it gives 24⅓ years for each generation. The difference between Allaṭa's 718 and Bappa's 810 is 92 years; if we assign 24⅓ years for each generation we find that Bappa is placed in the 4th generation from Aparājita." In the Atpur list this is Khommāṇa I.⁴ Bhandarkar therefore thought that Bappa must be identical with this Khommāṇa.⁵ Recently however G. H. Ojha has arrived at the conclusion that Bappa was the *biruda* of Khommāṇa I's father Kālabhoja.⁶ He rightly rejected the view of Kavirāja Syāmal Das,¹ who proposed to identify Aparājita's son Mahendra with Bappa. For, as the Kavirāja accepted V.S. 810 as the year of Bappa's abdication, a period of nearly one hundred years must accordingly be assigned to two consecutive reigns, which is unusual and cannot be accepted without the support of stronger evidence. Ojha points out that in the *Rāja-praśasti-mahākāvya* as well as the *Khyāta* of Naiṇsī, 'Khumhmāṇa' is given as the name of the son of 'Bāppā.' As in the Atpur inscription Kālabhoja is given as the name of Khommāṇa's father, Ojha is certain that Bappa must be the *biruda* of Kālabhoja.² It is unwise to be dogmatic in regard to either of these two views.³ But it seems to me that Bappa should be referred to the period between 739 A.D., the approximate date of the destruction of the Maurya principality by the Arabs, and 753 A.D., the traditional date for Bappa's abdication. Now we have the date 661 A.D. for Aparājita.⁴ The period between this date and 753 A.D. is 92 years which can be covered by 3 or 4 generations. But as Mewar tradition is unanimous that Bappa had a very long reign⁵ we can accept that it was probably covered by three generations. This would tend to support the identification of Bappa with Kālabhoja.