Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c16: Chapter X. The Imperial Pratīhāras

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter X. The Imperial Pratīhāras

Section A

c16.s1.1

Circumstances of Nāgabhaṭa II's conquest

c16.s1.2

The exact circumstances which led Nāgabhaṭa II to attack Kanauj are more or less shrouded in mystery, but it seems the elevation of Cakrāyudha under the patronage of Dharmapāla was followed by troublous times. The Rāṣṭrakūṭas, who had now begun to intervene in the affairs of the north, as is evident from the raids of Dhruva (circa 779-794 A. D.),¹ could not long tolerate the Bengal king's assumption of supreme status in Northern India, and a trial of strength between the two rising powers became inevitable.² Govinda III (circa 794-814 A. D.), the son and successor of Dhruva, threw out a challenge to Dharmapāla's imperial pretensions, and the result of this conflict is preserved in the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa I : "The water of the springs of the Himālaya mountains was drunk by Govinda III's horses and plunged into by his elephants, the thunder was redoubled in (its) caverns by the tūrya musical instruments of (his) ablutions, (and) to whom, the great one, those (kings) Dharma and Cakrāyudha surrendered of themselves. He thus bore resemblance to the fame of Himālaya, and was consequently Kīrti-Nārāyaṇa.”¹ Dharma and Cakrāyudha in this passage undoubtedly refer to the king of Kanauj and his liege-lord, whose combined strength even could not successfully resist the northward triumphant march of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa army. We may, therefore, be sure that this foreign invasion, coming close on the heels of other depredations in the Doab, must have considerably harassed the populace and introduced anarchy and misrule. Such an unsettled state of affairs was bound to invite aggressions from ambitious quarters, and the Gwalior inscription of Bhoja thus informs us how Nāgabhaṭa II availed himself of this opportunity: “Who, desirous of the great growth of virtuous acts enjoined in the Vedas, performed a series of religious ceremonies according to the custom of Kṣatriya families; and after having defeated Cakrāyudha, whose lowly demeanour was manifest from his dependence on others, he became eminent, although he was humble through modesty.”² After achieving this victory there are indications that Nāgabhaṭa boldly annexed Kanauj, but before taking up the thread of the history of the Pratihāras, we must make a slight digression to trace their origin and briefly survey their antecedent position.

c16.s1.3

¹ See Ante; the Baroda grant of Karkarāja (Ind. Ant., XII, pp. 159, 163), and the Sanjan plates (Ep. Ind., XVIII, pp. 244, 252).

c16.s1.4

² It is significant that the Khalimpur record of Dharmapāla makes no mention of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, when it enumerates the different powers that gave their assent to his political arrangement in Kanauj.

c16.s1.5

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 245, 253, verse 23; see also the Nilgund inscription in which Govinda III is said to have fettered the people of Gauḍa etc. (*Ibid.*, VI, pp. 102, 105).

c16.s1.6

² *Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind.*, 1903-04, pp. 281, 284; *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 108, 112, verse 9.

Who were the Pratihāras?

c16.s1.t1.1

There is a late legend in Cand’s Rāso, which groups the Parihāras or Pratihāras³ along with three other Rajput clans—the Cauhan (Cāhamāna), Powār (Paramāra), and Solanki (Caulukya)—as “Agnikula,” deriving their origin from a sacrificial fire-pit (agnikuṇḍa) at Mount Abu. The myth is apparently absurd, but it may well represent, as observed by Crooke, “a rite of purgation by fire, the scene of which was in Southern Rajputana, whereby the impurity of the foreigners was removed and they became fitted to enter the Hindu caste system.”¹ According to this view, therefore, the Pratīhāras were of foreign extraction, and we have further reason to hold that they were a branch of the famous Gurjaras—one of those nomadic Central Asian tribes that poured down into India along with or soon after the Hūṇas through the north-western passes during the period of political ferment following the disruption of the great Gupta Empire.² This seems evident from the Rajor (Rājyapura) stone inscription, dated V. E. 1016 or 959 A. D. in the reign of Mathanadeva, a feudatory of Vijayapāladeva of Kanauj.³ The former is therein explicitly described as belonging to the Gurjara Pratīhāra lineage, since the phrase “Gurjara-Pratīhārānvayaḥ” occurring in it must be interpreted to mean “Pratīhāra clan of the Gurjaras.”⁴ Some scholars, on the other hand, think that the word Gurjara in this expression does not denote the tribe or people of that name but ‘the Gurjara country (Gurjjaratrā-bhūmi).’⁵

c16.s1.t1.2

³ It is obvious that the two forms are variants of each other,

c16.s1.t1.3

¹ Journal Royal Anthropological Institute, 1911, p. 42.

c16.s1.t1.4

² See Bom. Gaz., IX, pt. I, pp. 471-478; Ind. Ant., XL, pp. 21-24; J. R. A. S., 1904, p. 640; Ibid., 1909, p. 54, etc.

c16.s1.t1.5

³ Ep. Ind., III, pp. 263-267.

c16.s1.t1.6

⁴ Ep. Ind., III, p. 266; see also Ind. Ant., XL, p. 22.

c16.s1.t1.7

⁵ C. V. Vaidya, H. M. H. I., Vol. II, pp. 31, 32, note; Ind. Hist. Quart., June, 1934, pp. 337-38.

c16.s1.t1.8

although by mistake one list of the traditional 36 clans gives a place both to Parihār and Pratīhāra (Forbes, Rāsamālā, II, pp. 235-36).

c16.s1.t1.9

This view, however, will not bear scrutiny, as a close perusal of the Rajor inscription would show. In line 12 there occur the words “... Tathaitat pratyāsanna Śrī Gurjjara vāhita samasta-kṣetra sametaḥ ...,” which has rightly been translated by “together with all the neighbouring fields cultivated by the Gurjaras.” Here the cultivators themselves are clearly called Gurjaras, and it may, therefore, be reasonable to presume that in the earlier part of the grant, in line four too, the term bears a racial signification. That the Pratīhāras belonged to the Gurjara stock is also confirmed by the Rāṣṭrakūṭa records, and the Arab writers like Abu Zaid and Al Ma‘sūdī who allude to their fights with the Juzr or Gujaras of the north¹. These references are undoubtedly to be held as applying to the Pratīhāras of Kanauj, for at this period they were the only power to contend against the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, with whom sometimes the Arabs even co-operated against Kanauj. Besides, we have the important testimony of the Kanarese poet Pampa, who expressly calls Mahīpāla “Ghūrjararāja.”² This epithet could hardly be applied to him, if the term “Ghūrjara” bore a geographical sense denoting what after all was only a small portion of Mahīpāla’s vast territories. Lastly, support for the foreign or Gurjara origin of the Pratīhāras may further be found in certain outlandish personal names of the earlier Pratīhāra rulers of Mandor (Māṇḍavyapura, near Jodhpur), from whom, as remarked by Dr. R. C. Majumdar, “it is not impossible that the imperial Pratīhāras of Kanauj also branched off.” Thus the Jodhpur inscription of Bāuka informs us that Haricandra was surnamed Rohillāddhi, and Narabhaṭṭa had another name Pellāpelli on account of his prowess.³ Surely these do not sound Aryan names, and what is more notable is that they were assumed when the Pratīhāras of Rajputana had wholly become merged into the Hindu Society.¹

c16.s1.t1.10

¹ J. B. B. R. A. S., XXI, pp. 422-24.

c16.s1.t1.11

² See Infra.

c16.s1.t1.12

³ Ep. Ind., XVIII, pp. 97-98.

c16.s1.t1.13

¹ See also *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, IV (1928), p. 746.

c16.s1.t1.14

The inscriptions of the dynasty, however, suggest a different line of enquiry. The Gwalior inscription of Bhoja says:

c16.s1.t1.15

“Slāghyas—tasyānujosau maghava-madamuṣo Me-
ghanādasya saṃkhye,
Saumittris tīvra-daṇḍaḥ Pratiharaṇavidher yaḥ
Pratīhāra āsit.”²

c16.s1.t1.16

² *Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind.*, 1903-04, pp. 280, 283, verse 3; *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 107, 110.

c16.s1.t1.17

i.e., “Saumitri, his honourable younger brother of staff severe, was the door-keeper (Pratīhāra), since he repelled (the enemies) in the battle with Meghanāda, the destroyer of Indra’s pride.”

c16.s1.t1.18

According to it, the forebear of this family was Lakṣamaṇa, the brother of Rāma, and he came to be known as Pratīhāra owing to his act of repelling (pratiharaṇa-videḥ) displayed against his enemies, like Meghanāda, in battle. Again, the Jodhpur inscription of Bāuka belonging to the Pratīhāra house of Rajputana tells us :

c16.s1.t1.19

“Svabhrātṛā Rāmabhadrasya Pratīhāryaṃ kṛtaṃ
yataḥ,
Śrī - prattihāra - vaṃśo yaṃ atas - c - onnatim-
āpnuyāt.”

c16.s1.t1.20

i.e., “Inasmuch as the very brother of Rāmabhadra performed the duty of door-keeper (pratīhāra), this illustrious clan came to be known as Pratīhāra.”³ Thus in both the records although the name Pratīhāra is derived from different memorable events in the life of Lakṣamaṇa, the point common to both is that the clan is said to be descended from the same epic hero, and thereby held as a genuine indigenous one. It may be added that in the Gwalior *praśasti* Vatsarāja, father of Nāgabhaṭa, is definitely represented as “foremost among the most distinguished Kṣatriyas” and as one who “stamped the noble race of Ikṣvāku with his own name by virtue of his blameless conduct.”¹ This proud claim is further strengthened by Rājaśekhara, the dramatist at the Pratīhāra court, who calls his patron Mahendrapāla “Raghu-kulatilaka” i.e., ornament of the race of Raghu in the *Viddhaśālabhañjikā*,² and “Raghugrāmaṇi” or leader of Raghu’s family in the *Bālabhārata*.³ Similarly the poet uses the expression “Raghuvamśamuktāmaṇi” or pearl-jewel of Raghu’s line for Mahīpāla in the last named work.⁴ But we need not attach any special significance to the above traditions, for such legendary origins are often ascribed to ruling families to give them a noble and well-known pedigree. The alleged connection with Lakṣamaṇa is clearly mythical; and it was perhaps fabricated by *praśastikaras* when the barbarian hordes had gained power and were thoroughly Hinduised, adopting Sanskritic names and Brahmanical forms of worship, and stood in dire need of carrying back their genealogy to find a respectable place in Hindu social polity.⁵

c16.s1.t1.21

³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1894, p. 4, verse 4; *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 95, 97; *Prog. Rep. Arch. Surv. W. circle*, 1906-07, p. 30.

c16.s1.t1.22

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 108, 111, verse 7.

c16.s1.t1.23

² Cf. “Raghukulatilako Mahendraḥ” (canto I, stanza 6, ed. Ārte).

c16.s1.t1.24

³ Cf. “Devo Mahendrapālanṛpatiḥ śiṣyo Raghugrāmaṇiḥ” (canto I, stanza 11).

c16.s1.t1.25

⁴ I, 7. See also R. R. Haldar, *Ind. Ant.*, Oct. 1928, pp. 181-184, for the view that the Pratīhāras belonged to the solar (Raghu’s) race.

c16.s1.t1.26

⁵ See, however, Dr. D. C. Ganguly, *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, June, 1934, pp. 337-343, where he has tried to show that the Pratīhāras were originally Brahmans and then became Kṣatriyas, and that they were so called because the founder of the family occupied the office of Pratīhāra or door-keeper. For a criticism of the same, see *Indian Culture*, January, 1935, pp. 510-512.

Their original territories

c16.s1.t2.1

There is a remarkable passage (stanza 51) in the colophon to the Jain *Harivaṃśa*, which gives us valuable information regarding the place where the Pratihāras of Kanauj were settled prior to their northern conquest. It runs as follows :

c16.s1.t2.2

Sākesv-abdaśateṣu saptasu disāṃ pañcottareṣū-
ttarāṃ,
Pāti-Indrāyudha-nāmni Kṛṣṇanṛpaje Śrīvallabhe
dakṣiṇāṃ.
Pūrvāṃ Śrīmad-Avanti-bhūbhṛiti nṛipe
Vatsā-dirāje-parāṃ,
Sauryāṇām-adhimanḍale Jayayute vīre varāhe-vatī¹.

c16.s1.t2.3

¹ *Bom. Gaz.*, 1896, Vol. I, pt. II, p. 197, fn. 2; *Ind. Ant.*, XV, pp. 141-42.

c16.s1.t2.4

Commenting on this stanza Dr. Fleet observed that the "work was finished in Śaka-*saṃvat* 705 (expired) = A. D. 783-84, when there were reigning—in various directions determined with reference to a town named Vardhamāna-pura, which is to be identified with the modern Wadhwan in the Jhalavad divison of Kāṭhiāwāḍ—in the north, Indrāyudha; in the south, Śrīvallabha; in the east Vatsarāja, king of Avanti (Ujjain); and in the west Varāha or Jayavarāha, in the territory of the Sauryas². This interpretation was later on called in question by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar,³ but, as in view of the new light thrown by the Sanjan plates, the learned professor himself has "no doubt now as to the correctness of Dr.

c16.s1.t2.5

² *Fleet*, *Ep. Ind.*, VI, pp. 195-96; see also Dr. Hoernle, *J. R. A. S.*, 1904, p. 644; Dr. R. C. Majumdar, *Jour. Dept. Lett.*, (Calcutta University), Vol. X, pp. 23-25.

c16.s1.t2.6

³ *J. B. B. R. A. S.*, XXI, p. 421, fn. 4; this rendering was also endorsed by Smith in *J. R. A. S.*, 1909, p. 253; Sten Konow, *Ep. Ind.*, XII, p. 200; R. D. Banerji, *Mem. As. Soc. Beng.*, Vol. V, pt. III, p. 50.

c16.s1.t2.7

Fleet’s translation,”¹ we omit to discuss his rendering here.² Now the chief point to be noticed in Dr. Fleet’s translation is that it gives the king’s personal name in each case, and equates Vatsarāja with the ruler of Avanti (Ujjain). This Vatsarāja has been accepted on all hands to be identical with the monarch of the same name mentioned in the Kanauj Pratīhāra inscriptions as predecessor of Nāgabhaṭa II and grand-nephew of Nāgabhaṭa I, the founder of the line. We may, therefore, safely draw the inference that the predecessors of the Pratīhāra conqueror of Kanauj had their seat of power at Ujjain and not Śrīmāla or Bhinmal in Southern Rajputana, as was at one time asserted by Smith and other scholars.³ Support for this view may further be found in a verse occurring in the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa I, dated in the Saka year 793 or 871 A. D.⁴ It says :

c16.s1.t2.8

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, p. 239.

c16.s1.t2.9

² Dr. R. C. Majumdar has examined this point at some length; see *Jour. Dep. Lett.*, Vol. X, pp. 23-26.

c16.s1.t2.10

³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1909, p. 57; *Early Hist. of India*, 4th ed., p. 393; Sten Konow, *Ep. Ind.*, XII, p. 201.

c16.s1.t2.11

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 235-57.

c16.s1.t2.12

“Hiraṇyagarbhaṁ rājanyaiḥ Ujjayinyāṁ yadā-
sitam,
Pratīhāriḥ kṛtaṁ yena Gurjjareś-ādi rājakaṁ,”

c16.s1.t2.13

i.e., “By whom kings such as the Gurjara lord and others were made door-keepers when in Ujjayini the (great gift called) Hiraṇyagarbha was completed by the Kṣatriyas.”⁵ We thus learn from this passage that Dantidurga Rāṣṭrakūṭa reduced to subordinate rank a Gurjara ruler, and made him publicly attend on him as a *pratihāra* or door-keeper at a grand ceremony at Ujjain. Now, if the Gurjara was not king of Ujjain, this act would not have much point, for it was evidently meant to create an impression. Besides, the special mention of the Gurjara among the princes compelled to do homage and the play on the word *pratihāra*, suggests that he was the chief then ruling over the territories of Ujjain.

c16.s1.t2.14

⁵ Ibid., pp. 243, 252, verse 9. The Ellora Daśāvatāra cave temple inscription also informs us that Mahārāja Sarva, apparently another name of Dantidurga, conquered Mālava and instituted a Mahādāna ceremony, in which he freely distributed large sums of money and other precious objects among supplicants (*Arch. Surv. Ind. W. Circle, V*, p. 88).

c16.s1.t2.15

*Their power prior to the transfer of the capital*

c16.s1.t2.16

The inscriptions give us some glimpses of the doings of the Pratihāras in their homelands, which brought them into prominence and ultimately enabled Nāgabhata II to subjugate the kingdom of Kanauj. The family began well under Nāgabhata, who is credited in the Gwalior inscription with "having crushed the large armies of the powerful Mleccha king, the destroyer of virtue."¹ Evidently we have here a reference to his successful stand against the vanguards of Islam that were at this time sweeping down the western borders of India. This conclusion is also in accordance with the information supplied by Al Bilādūri, who after mentioning the different regions overrun by the Arabs in India says : "They made incursions against Uzain and they attacked Baharīmad and burnt its suburbs. Junaid conquered Al Bailaman and Jurz."² It is thus clear that the Arabs could not make any headway against Ujjain, for whereas Junaid, who was governor of Sind under Khalif Hishām (724-743 A. D.) subdued other places, he is represented to have simply carried on raids in the direction of Ujjain. During the time of his weak and incompetent successor, Tamim, the Arabs even “retired from several parts of India and left some of their positions,”¹ and this decline in their power may have in no small measure been due to the vigorous drive of Indian rulers like that of Ujjain. Perhaps it was in the course of these fights that Nāgabhaṭa carried his arms as far as Bhrigukaccha or Broach, where the Cāhamāna feudatory Bhartrivaddha II is recorded in V. E. 813 = 756 A. D. to have made a grant of the village Arjunadevigrāma situate in the Akrūreśvara viṣaya (Anklesvar Taluka) to the Brahman Bhaṭṭabhūṭa “in the reign of increasing victory of the illustrious Nāgāvaloka,”² who is in all likelihood no other than the founder of the Pratīhāra line.³

c16.s1.t2.17

¹ Ep. Ind., XVIII, pp. 107, 110-111. Cf. "Yen āsau sukṛita pramāthi va (ba) lavān Mlecchādhip—ākṣauhiṇīḥ."

c16.s1.t2.18

² Elliot, History of India, Vol. I, p. 126.

c16.s1.t2.19

¹ *Ibid.*

c16.s1.t2.20

² Hansot grant, *Ep. Ind.*, XII, pp. 203, 204.

c16.s1.t2.21

³ Sten Konow, *Ibid.*, p. 200; Dr. Bhandarkar, *Ind. Ant.*, 1911, p. 240.

c16.s1.t2.22

The second king, Kakustha, was the son of an unnamed brother of Nāgabhaṭa; he was also called Kakkuka on account of his habit of saying welcome things in an inverted manner, but beyond this curious fact we know nothing about him.

c16.s1.t2.23

The third king, Devaśakti or Devarāja, younger brother of Kakkuka, seems to have maintained the dignity of the house in tact, although the reference in the Gwalior inscription to the curbing of the movements (gati) of a “multitude of kings” (bhūbhrit) and their powerful allies” (pakṣāḥ) indicates that sometime during his reign the Pratīhāra authority was threatened by external danger. His son and successor Vatsarāja, born of Bhūyikādevī and known to have been ruling in the year 783-84 A. D., was certainly more than a mere name. The Gwalior inscription asserts that “with strong bows as his companion he forcibly wrested (hathād-agrahīt) the empire (sāmrājyam), in battle from the famous Bhaṇḍi clan, hard to be overcome by reason of the rampart made of infuriated elephants.”¹ It is difficult to identify this Bhaṇḍi clan, as history does not record any other Bhaṇḍi except the prince mentioned in the Harṣacarita, but we do not know what happened to him and where he established his authority. A conjecture may, however, be hazarded that the name stands for the Bhaṭṭi clan, whose political importance may best be inferred from the fact mentioned in the Jodhpur inscription that Padminī, the mother of Pratīhāra Bāuka, belonged to it.² We may, therefore, take the passage as an allusion to Vatsarāja’s attainment of the supreme status in Gurjaratrā or Central Rajputana, which is to some extent confirmed by the Osia and Daulatpura inscriptions. The former is engraved in the porch of a Jain temple and speaks of it as existing in the time of Vatsarāja,³ and according to the latter charter he granted the village of Sivā in the Deṇḍavānaka viṣaya (modern Didwāna) of the Gurjaratrā bhūmi to the Bhaṭṭavāsudeva.⁴

c16.s1.t2.24

¹ Ep. Ind., XVIII, pp. 108, 111, verse 7.

c16.s1.t2.25

² Ibid., pp. 96, 98, verse 26.

c16.s1.t2.26

³ J. R. A. S., 1907, p. 1010.

c16.s1.t2.27

⁴ Ep. Ind., V, pp. 211, 213.

c16.s1.t2.28

But the most noteworthy tribute to his achievements is paid by the inscriptions of his victorious rivals, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas themselves. We are, for example, told in the Wani-Dindori⁵ and Radhanpur grants⁶ that Vatsarāja had become “intoxicated with the goddess of the sovereignty (of the country of) Gauḍa that he had acquired with ease,” and that his fame “had reached to the extremities of the regions.” Again, the Baroda plates of 812 A. D. inform us that the lord of Gurjaras became “evilly inflamed by conquering the lord of Gauḍa and the lord of Vanga.”¹ It is, however, not necessary to suppose that Vatsarāja’s armies overran Bengal, for he may have come into conflict with the Gauḍa monarch, identified with Dharmapāla, far away during the latter’s foreign expeditions. Perhaps after this trial of strength their relations became more happy. This would be evident if we remember that the Khalimpur plates depose that the ruler of Avanti approved of the installation of Cakrāyudha at Kanauj under the ægis of Dharmapāla. Presumably Vatsarāja made this diplomatic gesture on account of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa danger then looming large on the political horizon. But nothing availed him, and the storm soon burst in all its destructive fury. For, the Wani and Radhanpur grants attest that Dhruva caused Vatsarāja “to enter upon the path of misfortune in the centre of (the deserts of) Maru,” which expression probably means that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarch met his rival in a successful encounter and compelled him to take shelter in the inhospitable tracts of Rajputana, where, as shown above, the Pratīhāras of Ujjain had already established their supremacy.

c16.s1.t2.29

⁵ Ind. Ant., XI, p. 161.

c16.s1.t2.30

⁶ Ep. Ind., VI, pp. 243, 248, verse 8.

c16.s1.t2.31

¹ Ibid., XII, p. 164. The overlordship of Gauḍa and Vanga explains the expression “Gauḍa’s two umbrellas of state,” which, according to the Radhanpur grant, Dhruva took away from Vatsarāja.

Nāgabhaṭa II

c16.s1.t3.1

According to the list of kings given in inscriptions, which are our chief sources of information for the Pratīhāra dynasty,² Vatsarāja’s successor was his son Nāgabhaṭa by the queen Sundarī-Devī. His earliest known date is (Vikrama) Saṃvat 872 or 815 A. D. (Buckalā inscription), and although we have no evidence to fix the year of his accession, it may tentatively be assumed to have taken place about 805 A. D. It appears that in the beginning he tried to retrieve the fortunes of his family and to avenge the crushing defeat of his father at the hands of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, but the stars were as unfavourable to him as to his predecessor. For the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa I, dated Saka 793 = 871 A. D., credit Govinda III with “carrying away in battles the fair and unshakable fame of kings Nāgabhaṭa and Candragupta,”¹ and there can scarcely be any doubt that the former represents the son of Vatsarāja.² That the result of the struggle was decisively against Nāgabhaṭa is clear from other records also. The Pathari pillar inscription, for instance, tells us that Karkarāja “caused Nāgāvaloka quickly to turn back,”³ and the vanquished opponent has rightly been identified by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar with Nāgabhaṭa II. The inscription is dated in V. E. 917 = 861 A. D. in the reign of Parabala,⁴ and assuming that he had a long reign, we may reasonably conclude that his father Karkarāja was a contemporary of Govinda III and possibly also his feudatory, in which capacity he must have helped the latter against Nāgabhaṭa. Again, the Radhanpur inscription says that “the Gurjara in fear (of Govinda III) vanished nobody knew whither, so that even in a dream he might not see battle.”⁵ As the Wani grant of Govinda III does not give us this additional information regarding the defeat of the Gurjara king, we may reasonably place the event between 806-07 A. D., the date of the above grant, and 808 A. D., the year of the Radhanpur record. Govinda III, however, continued to apprehend trouble, as Mālava was now almost the bone of contention between his house and the Pratihāras, and so according to the Baroda plates of Karkarāja, he “for the purpose of protecting Mālava...... caused his (Karkarāja’s) arm to become an excellent door-bar of the country of the lord of the Gurjaras.”¹

c16.s1.t3.2

² See Appendix.

c16.s1.t3.3

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 245, 253, verse 22.

c16.s1.t3.4

² *Ibid.*, p. 240.

c16.s1.t3.5

³ *Ibid.*, IX, p. 255, verse 14.

c16.s1.t3.6

⁴ The identity of this chief has been the subject of controversy. See Kielhorn, *Ibid.*, IX, p. 51; Fleet, *Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts*, p. 198.

c16.s1.t3.7

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, VI, pp. 244, 250, verse 15. Cf. “Gūrjaro naṣṭaḥ kvāpi bhayāt tathā na samaraṃ svapnepi paśyet yathā.”

c16.s1.t3.8

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XII, pp. 160, 164. ² *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII., pp. 245, 253, verse 23. Cf. “... Svayaṁ eva upanatau ca yasya mahataḥ tau Dharma-Cakrāyudhau ...” ³ *Bom. Gaz.*, Vol. I, pt. II, pp. 402, 409; *Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times* (Poona, 1934), pp. 69, 73.

c16.s1.t3.9

Nāgabhaṭa’s preliminary attempts thus proved abortive, but success in another direction was not long to come. His Rāṣṭrakūṭa adversary, Govinda III, who had also overrun the north upto the Himālayas, and to whom Cakrāyudha of Kanauj and his liege-lord Dharmapāla had submitted of their own accord², got engrossed towards the close of his reign with internal affairs in order to secure the succession of his son, Amoghavarṣa. And when Govinda III died early in 814 A. D., his young successor was unable to stem the rising tide of serious domestic seditions with the result that the kingdom was soon plunged in anarchy and confusion.³ This freedom of reprisals from the Rāṣṭrakūṭas probably gave to Nāgabhaṭa the opportunity to wage war, as we have seen above, against Cakrāyudha “whose lowly demeanour was manifest from his dependence on others.” The defeat was evidently followed by the annexation of the kingdom, and the transfer of the Pratihāra capital to Kanauj, since Cakrāyudha disappears about this time from the stage of history, and Nāgabhaṭa’s successors for several generations are definitely known to have held their court there. The conquest of Kanauj at once gave to the Pratihāras the supreme power in the north, and Nāgabhaṭa felt himself justified in assuming the full imperial titles—Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja, and Parameśvara—in the Buckalā inscription issued in the year 815 A. D.¹

c16.s1.t3.10

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, IX. p. 199 f.

c16.s1.t3.11

But though Nāgabhaṭa was now immune from the Rāṣṭrakūṭa danger on account of their internal dissensions and rivalries, Dharmapāla of Bengal, who had raised Cakrāyudha to the throne, took the field against him to avenge his vassal’s deposition. A reminiscence of this struggle is preserved in the Gwalior inscription of Bhoja in terms suggestive of its importance and arduous character. We are told that “having vanquished his enemy, the lord of Vanga, who appeared like a mass of dark, dense cloud in consequence of the crowd of mighty elephants, horses and chariots, Nāgabhaṭa who alone gladdens (the heart of) the three worlds, revealed himself, even as the rising sun, the sole source of manifestation of the three worlds, reveals himself by vanquishing dense and terrible darkness”.² The battle was probably fought at Monghyr, since the Jodhpur inscription of Bāuka, dated in the (Vikrama) year 894 or 837 A. D., informs us that his father Kakka “gained renown by fighting with the Gauḍas at Mudgagiri.”³ From the date of the record it is evident that Kakka must have been a contemporary of Nāgabhaṭa; and as the house of the latter had already risen to ascendancy in Rajputana, we may assume that Kakka proceeded as far as Monghyr only to help his suzerain in a conflict that was to decide the fortunes of the Pratihāras in Kanauj. Perhaps another feudatory chief, who fought against the ruler of Bengal on behalf of Nāgabhaṭa, was Saṃkaragaṇa. The Cātsū inscription of Bālāditya¹ says that he “defeated the king of Gauḍa, a great warrior (bhaṭa), and made the whole world, gained by warfare, subservient to his overlord.”² As well pointed out by Dr. R. C. Majumdar, this Saṃkaragaṇa must have been a contemporary of Nāgabhaṭa about the commencement of the 9th century, since the former was the great-grandson of Dhanika, who is known to have been ruling in 725 A. D.³ Thus having dispersed the dense clouds in the form of the mighty hosts of Dharmapāla the sun of Nāgabhaṭa’s glory shone in the political horizon, and soon its brilliant rays began to permeate and radiate all round. For the Gwalior inscription, which details his subsequent achievements, tells us that the kings of Andhra, Sindhu, Vidarbha and Kalinga succumbed to his youthful energy as moths do unto fire.⁴ The Andhra country lay between the Godāvarī and the Kṛṣṇā; Sindhu denotes the lower course of the Indus; Vidarbha and Kalinga were the ancient designations of the modern provinces of Berar and Orissa. And if these alleged conquests were really in accordance with facts, Nāgabhaṭa’s sphere of suzerainty must have covered all the regions from the east to the west, and from the Himālayas to the Nerbuda, excluding, of course the north-western parts and the Pāla dominions. But there is little reason to accept any such conclusion, for the simile itself used by the poet is significant. We are told that just as moths cannot resist rushing headlong towards the fire, similarly the kings of the countries named were attracted of their own accord towards Nāgabhaṭa—or in other words they sought his powerful aid or alliance against their respective enemies who may be identified with the incoming Moslems in the west, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in the south, and the Pālas in the east.

c16.s1.t3.12

² *Ibid.*, XVIII, pp. 108, 112, verse 10.

c16.s1.t3.13

³ *Ibid.*, pp. 96, 98, verse 24.

c16.s1.t3.14

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XII, p. 10 f.

c16.s1.t3.15

² *Ibid.*, pp. 14-15, vs. 14-16. See, however, Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar’s remarks (*Ibid.*, p. 12).

c16.s1.t3.16

³ *Jour. Dep. Lett.*, X, pp. 40-41, Note. I have followed Dr. R. C. Majumdar’s interpretation.

c16.s1.t3.17

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 108, 112, verse 8.

c16.s1.t3.18

Verse eleven in the same record, however, makes more specific mention of his victories, which comprised the “forcible seizure” (hathāpahāraḥ) of the hill-forts of Ānartta or northern Kāṭhiāwāḍ; Mālava or Central India; the Matsyas or eastern Rajputana; the Kirātas, who were perhaps the wild tribes of the Himālayan region;¹ the Turuṣkas, probably designating the earliest Moslem settlements in Western India; and the Vatsas in the territory of Kausambi (Kosam). It is difficult to see how far they represent actual annexations, but making due allowance for any exaggeration we may roughly define the kingdom of Kanauj under Nāgabhaṭa as comprising parts of Rajputana, a large portion of the modern United Provinces and Central India, perhaps northern Kāṭhiāwāḍ, with Kosambi and adjacent territories for its south-eastern limit. That Nāgabhaṭa was a powerful king exercising sway over a number of petty chiefs is also clear from the Harṣa stone inscription of Vigraharāja, dated the Vikrama year 1030 or 973 A. D.,² wherein one of his predecessors, the Cāhamāna Gūvaka I, is described as having obtained honour at the court of Nāgavaloka, which evidently seems a polite way of expressing a feudatory rank. The relevant passage runs as follows:

c16.s1.t3.19

¹ For Kirātas see *Indian Culture*, January 1935, pp. 381-82.

c16.s1.t3.20

² *Ep. Ind.*, II, pp. 121, 126 and notes; see also *Ind. Ant.*, 1911, pp. 239-40 for the identification of Nāgavaloka with Nāgabhaṭa II.

c16.s1.t3.21

“Adyaḥ Śrī-Gūvakākhyā-prathita-narapatis
Cāhamānānvayo ’bhūt,

c16.s1.t3.22

Śrīman-Nāgāvaloka-pravara-nṛpasabhā-labdha vīrapratiṣṭhaḥ.”

c16.s1.t3.23

The *Pṛthvīrājavijaya*¹ also throws interesting sidelight on the relations between the two families, for it says that with a view to cementing them further Gūvaka’s sister, Kalāvatī, married the lord of Kanauj in preference to other suitors.

c16.s1.t3.24

¹ V, verses 30-31, p. 137 (Belvalkar’s edition).

Rāmabhadra

c16.s1.t4.1

Nāgabhaṭa ceased to rule in the Vikrama year 890 or 833 A. D. according to the Jain *Prabhāvakacarita*² and was succeeded by Rāmabhadra, sometimes also called Rāma or Rāmadeva, his son by queen Iṣṭādevī. Rāmabhadra’s reign seems to have been marked by some crisis, for we are told in the Gwalior inscription that he had “the haughty and cruel commanders of armies forcibly bound down by (his subordinate) kings who had the best cavalry under their charge”³ It is difficult to detect precisely who these enemies were. Dr. R. C. Majumdar identifies them with the Pālas of Bengal,⁴ who, as we shall see below, claim to have made some depredations in Northern India about this time, and he may be right considering that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarch, Amoghavarṣa I, was then far too occupied with domestic troubles to think of emulating the exploits of Dhruva and Govinda III. Although the record, as usual, speaks of the destruction of “evil-doers,” the disturbances caused by them must have been sufficiently serious, since Rāmabhadra, being unable to cope with the danger single-handed, is here recorded to have invoked the good offices of his feudatory chiefs.

c16.s1.t4.2

² Verses 720-22, p. 177 (ed. H. M. Śarmā, Bombay, 1909); *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 179, note 3.

c16.s1.t4.3

³ *Ibid.*, XVIII, pp. 108, 112, verse 12. Cf. “... pravara-hari-vala nyasta bhūbhṛt-pravandhair-āvadhnan vāhinīnāṁ prasabhaṁ adhipatin uddhata-krūra-satvān ...”

c16.s1.t4.4

⁴ *Jour. Dept. Lett.*, X, p. 46.

c16.s1.t4.5

The fact that two grants—one in the Kālañjaramaṇḍala first made by his predecessor,¹ and the other in the Gurjaratrā-bhūmi originally made by Vatsarāja and confirmed by Nāgabhaṭa²—fell into abeyance during Rāmabhadra’s reign doubtless points to the same conclusion that he occupied the throne during a period of stress and storm. We have no definite evidence how far he maintained the kingdom intact, but it is certain that his authority continued to be recognised as far distant as Gwalior, where Vaillabhaṭṭa, son of Nāgarabhaṭṭa of the Varjara family, was acting for him in the capacity of the chief of the boundaries.³

c16.s1.t4.6

¹ Barah copper plate, *Ep. Ind.*, XIX, pp. 18, 19.

c16.s1.t4.7

² Daulatpura inscription, *Ibid.*, V, p. 213. The charter and consent remained in abeyance during the earlier years of Bhoja’s reign until he renewed it in 843 A. D. (see Infra).

c16.s1.t4.8

³ *Ibid.*, I, pp. 156, 157, verse 7.

Mihira-Bhoja (circa 836-885 A. D.)

c16.s1.t5.1

After a very short reign lasting for about three years, Rāmabhadra was succeeded by his son Bhoja I, whose mother was queen Appādevī. It was believed that he came to the throne about 840 A. D.⁴ until the recently discovered copper plate at Barah furnished the Vikrama year 893 or 836 A. D. as his earliest date;⁵ and so his accession must be carried back at least four years. He is designated in the inscriptions by various names and titles, the most common being Bhoja. The Gwalior record calls him by the personal name (abhidhāna) Mihira, which is also used, as we shall see below, in one of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa inscriptions. In the Daulatpura inscription, however, he is given the title of Prabhāśa,¹ which means splendour, and perhaps refers to the name Mihira (the sun). Another title assumed by him in the Gwalior Caturbhuj epigraph and in certain coins of base silver was that of "Adivarāha," showing that he posed to identify himself with the boar-incarnation of Viṣṇu, although we are otherwise told that his predilections were towards the worship of the goddess Bhagavatī.

c16.s1.t5.2

⁴ Smith, *J. R. A. S.*, 1909, p. 262; Dr. R. C. Majumdar, *Jour. Dept. Lett.*, X, p. 47.

c16.s1.t5.3

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, XIX, pp. 15-19.

c16.s1.t5.4

¹ Ibid., V, pp. 212, 213, line 15.

c16.s1.t5.5

At the beginning of his career Bhoja appears to have attempted the consolidation of the Pratihāra power, which had received a shock during his father's feeble government. First, he re-established the supremacy of his family in Bundelkhand soon after coming to the throne, for the Barah copper plate, dated in (Vikrama) year 893 or 836 A. D., records his renewal on the old terms of the grant of Valākāgrahāra, lying in the Udumbara-viṣaya of the Kālañjara maṇḍala, which was first sanctioned by Nāgabhaṭa, but had been disturbed in the reign of Rāmabhadra. That Bundelkhand was at this time included in the kingdom of Kanauj is also affirmed by local traditions, which, though confused and discrepant, nevertheless yield this much of historical information that before the rise of the Candellas the country was in the possession of the Pratihāras.² It may further be noted here that until the former became a strong power under Yaśovarman they continued to acknowledge the suzerainty of the latter. Indeed, the Candella inscriptions themselves appear to support this conclusion, as they call the first few princes simply nṛipa, mahipati, or Kṣitipa, and bestow on them only vague conventional praises. Next Bhoja revived a grant in the year 843 A. D. in Gurjaratrā-bhūmi (Jodhpur or Marwar) originally made by Vatsarāja and confirmed by Nāgabhaṭa, but which had fallen into desuetude probably during the time of Rāmabhadra, and remained as such in the earlier years of Bhoja’s reign even. This shows that sometime before the year 843 A. D., he succeeded in restoring his authority over his ancestral desert territories. It is possible that this disturbance was caused by the feudatory Pratihāra family of Mandor, and the Jodhpur inscription dated 837 A. D.¹, which credits Bāuka with certain military achievements in spite of the odds arrayed against him, even lends some colour to this view.

c16.s1.t5.6

² J. A. S. B., 1881, pt. I. p. 3 f; LXXI (1902), pt. I, p. 102.

c16.s1.t5.7

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 96, 99.

c16.s1.t5.8

In the north Bhoja’s suzerainty was certainly acknowledged upto the foot of the Himālayas. This is evident from the Kahla plates of the Vikrama year 1134 or 1077 A. D., discovered in *pargana* Dhuriapur of the Gorakhpur district,² wherein we are told that Guṇāmbodhideva, a chief of the Kālacuri family, obtained some land from Bhojadeva (Bhojadevāpta-bhūmiḥ), whom Dr. Kielhorn has, I suppose, rightly identified with Bhojadeva I of Kanauj.³ For the grant is dated in the year 1077 A. D., and Soḍhadeva, the donor, formed the ninth generation of Guṇāmbodhideva. This fact at the usual rate of 26 years for a generation⁴ will naturally place Guṇāmbodhideva at about 843 A. D. i.e., the time when Bhoja I flourished. A reminiscence of his struggles is also preserved in the Cātsū inscription of Bālā-ditya, which affirms that Harṣarāja Guhila conquered kings in the north, and presented horses to Bhoja.⁵

c16.s1.t5.9

² *Ibid.*, VII, pp. 85-93.

c16.s1.t5.10

³ *Ibid.*, p. 86, note 4.

c16.s1.t5.11

⁴ *Ind. Ant.*, XIII, p. 417.

c16.s1.t5.12

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, XII, p. 15, verse 19. Cf. "Jitvā yaḥ sakalān-udicya-nṛpatīn Bhojaya bhaktyā ca ādau saṁktā-sekata-sindhu laghanavi Śrīvaṁśajān Vājinaḥ."

c16.s1.t5.13

(Read *śaktān saikata-sindhu-laṅghana-vidhau.*)

c16.s1.t5.14

This Bhoja is in all probability identical with his great Pratihāra namesake, and as a minor chief like Harṣarāja could not have overrun the north on his own account, it is reasonable to assume that he undertook these northerly campaigns only to render assistance to his Kanauj overlord in his ambitious schemes of conquest and consolidation.

c16.s1.t5.15

Having thus made himself the dominant power in the *Madhyadeśa*, Bhoja turned to measure swords with the Pālas of Bengal, who under the vigorous rule of king Devapāla had once again launched upon their Imperial schemes, and are even poetically described in the Badal pillar inscription as having, on account of the sagacious policy of the first minister Darbhapāṇi, “made tributary the earth as far as Reva’s parent (the Vindhya hills), whose piles of rocks are moist with the rutting juice of elephants, as far as Gauri’s father (i.e., the Himālayas), the mountain which is whitened by the rays of Īśvara’s moon, and as far as the two oceans whose waters are red with the rising and setting of the sun.”¹ Similarly, verse 15 of the Monghyr grant avers that Devapāla enjoyed the whole region bounded on the north by the Himālayas, in the south by Rāma’s bridge, and by the abodes of Varuṇa and Lakṣmī (i.e., oceans) on the east and west.² Now all these hyperbolic descriptions are no doubt mere bombast, but one thing they certainly indicate that Devapāla did lead some successful military incursions, and thus the presence of two vigorous and masterful personalities in the politics of northern India made a clash inevitable. Soon the war-drum was sounded, and the legions began to move. At first Bhoja appears to have gained some ground, probably on the western frontiers of the Pāla kingdom, with the assistance of his feudatory Guṇāmbodhideva, who, as alleged in the Kahla plates, by a warlike expedition took away the fortune of Gauḍa.¹ Again, verse 18 of the Gwalior inscription, which speaks of Lakṣmī becoming his consort, seems to indicate that Bhoja achieved some victories over Dharma’s (Dharmapāla’s) son.² The former then tried to shatter his rival’s power finally, but Bhoja’s further efforts in this direction met with some reverses, as we are informed in the Badal pillar inscription that king Devapāla “brought low the arrogance of the lord of the Gurjaras” (Kharvikrita Gurjaranātha darpam).³ This exploit is attributed to the good advice of his minister Kedāra Miśra, the grandson of his first minister Darbhapāṇi, which shows that the event must have occurred late in his reign. Now, Devapāla is known to have ruled for a long time, from about 815 to *circa* 855 A. D.,⁴ and it is therefore fair to presume that the “lord of the Gurjaras” referred to in the above inscription is no other than Bhoja I Pratīhāra of Kanauj.

c16.s1.t5.16

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, II, pp. 162, 165, verse 5.

c16.s1.t5.17

² *Ibid.*, XVIII, p. 305.

c16.s1.t5.18

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, VII, pp. 86, 89, verse 9. Cf. “Asi-prakaṭa-prithu-pathenāhṛitā Gauḍalakṣmīḥ.”

c16.s1.t5.19

² *Ibid.* XVIII, pp. 109, 113, verse 18.

c16.s1.t5.20

³ *Ibid.*, II, pp. 163, 165, verse 13.

c16.s1.t5.21

⁴ The Nalanda plate of the year 39 (*Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 310-27) furnishes his last known regnal year.

c16.s1.t5.22

Undaunted by this effective check to his advance eastward, Bhoja next directed his energies towards the south, from which side the Rāṣṭrakūṭas had so often emerged to despoil the smiling fields of Kanauj. The Partabgarh inscription of Mahendrapāla II, discovered in southern Rajputana,⁵ probably contains an allusion to his expeditions in the south-western regions, since we are told therein that a Cāhamāna family of kings was “a source of great pleasure to king Bhojadeva,”⁶ who clearly appears from the context of the passage to be identical with our Bhoja I. Thus with the help of this local Cāhamāna dynasty Bhoja must have overrun southern Rajputana and the tracts round Ujjayinī upto the Narmada river, which had many a time in the past been the field of Rāṣṭrakūṭa operations. Perhaps it was during his time that these parts were definitely assimilated in the Kanauj empire, and as we shall see later on, they continued to be under Mahendrapāla II even, who had stationed one Mādhava as "the great feudatory lord and governor," at Ujjayinī, and another officer Śrīśarman was carrying on the affairs of state at Maṇḍapikā or Maṇḍū.

c16.s1.t5.23

⁵ *Ibid.*, XIV, pp. 176-88.

c16.s1.t5.24

⁶ *Ibid.*, pp. 180, 184.

c16.s1.t5.25

These distant campaigns, which may have been a sort of reconnaissance, brought Bhoja close to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarchy, and he therefore resolved to try his strength against the avowed enemies of his house. Fortune was, however, no more favourable to him than to any of his predecessors, for the Bagumra plates inform us that alone Dhruva II, who belonged to the collateral but not independent branch of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Mānyakheṭa (Malkhed), "easily put to flight the very strong army of the Gurjaras that was eager (for the fray) and reinforced by his kinsmen."[1] Who was this vanquished Gurjara lord is then specifically revealed in the following line : "Though Mihira was united to fortune and surrounded by crowds of noble kinsmen, though owing to his courage he conquered all the regions of the world, he nevertheless disappeared, his face being covered by the darkness of defeat, after he had looked upon the eminence of Dhārāvarṣa that was greater than his own."[2] This disaster, which reads like a repetition of Harṣa’s rout at the hands of Pulakeśi II, probably did not occur much earlier than the Śaka year 789 or 867 A. D., the date of the Bagumra grant, for none of the earlier Rāṣṭrakūṭa inscriptions mentions it; and moreover Bhoja must have spent a fairly long time after his accession about 836 A. D. in campaigns in other directions so as to deserve the proverbial credit of “having conquered all the regions of the world” in a record of the rival dynasty. What was the cause of this unexpected blow to Bhoja’s arms? Did Dhruva II receive any help from his Mānyakheṭa kinsman and overlord in this conflict? To these questions, of course, no answer can be given in our present state of knowledge. But certain it is that this repulse must have rankled in the mind of Bhoja, and he is therefore represented even in a late inscription of the year 875 A. D. as “wishing to conquer the three worlds.”¹ Indeed, towards the close of his reign he appears to have paid off old scores by compelling Kṛṣṇarāja, identified with Kṛṣṇa II Rāṣṭrakūṭa (875-911 A. D.), to retreat hastily to his own country. Unfortunately, however, the extant portion of this inscription is so fragmentary that it is difficult to draw further any definite conclusions from its evidence.² The Rāṣṭrakūṭa records, on the other hand, indicate otherwise. The Bagumra plates of Indra III dated Śaka *Saṃvat* 836 or 915 A. D., for example, refer to the vivid descriptions, which old men gave, of the courage and heroism of Kṛṣṇa II in his sanguinary wars with the “roaring Gurjara.”³ Another Bagumra inscription of Kṛṣṇa of the feudatory Gujarat family even speaks of his victories gained sometime before Śaka 810 or 888 A. D., the date of the epigraph in Ujjayinī, the veritable cockpit of those times.¹ In the face of these conflicting versions what no doubt seems probable is that the hereditary enemies unsheathed their swords, but their wars were inconclusive and did not prove advantageous to either party.

c16.s1.t5.26

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XII, pp. 184,1 89, verse 38. Cf. "Gūrjara-balam-iti balavat samudyatam vrimhitam ca kulyena, Ekākinaiva vihitam parāṅmukham līlayā yena.

c16.s1.t5.27

² *Ibid.*

c16.s1.t5.28

¹ Cf. “Śrīmad-ādivarāhena trailokyaṃ vijigīṣuṇā.”

c16.s1.t5.29

² Barton Museum (Bhavanagar) fragmentary Pratīhāra inscription, *Ep. Ind.*, XIX, pp. 174-177.

c16.s1.t5.30

³ *Ind. Ant.*, XIII, p. 66.

c16.s1.t5.31

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, IX, p. 24.

c16.s1.t5.32

Sometime during the course of his long reign Bhoja directed his imperialistic gaze towards the north-west also, and is definitely known to have annexed some territories on the eastern side of the river Satlej according to an inscription of the year 882 A. D., discovered at Prithūdaka or Pehoa in the Karnal district of the Panjab, which records the transaction of business at the local horse-fair by certain horse-dealers “in the auspicious and victorious reign of Bhojadeva.”² We have even indications that Bhoja’s arms penetrated farther into the Panjab, for a verse in the *Rājatarangiṇī*³ contains the following statement:

c16.s1.t5.33

² *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 186, 188.

c16.s1.t5.34

³ Vol. I, Bk. V, verse 151, (Stein, p. 206).

c16.s1.t5.35

“Hṛitaṃ Bhojādhirājena sa sāmrājyaṃ adāpayat, Pratīhāratayā bhrityibhūte Thakkiyakānvaye,” i.e., “He (*Śaṃkaravarman*) caused to be restored the dominion which had been taken away by the Adhirāja Bhoja, when the Thakkiya family was reduced to the condition of servants by being put to the duty of door-keepers.”⁴ The passage is a little obscure, but one thing is surely clear that at this period the name Bhoja with the title of “Adhirāja” can have reference only to the supreme lord of Kanauj, and that it testifies to the seizure of certain territories from the Thakkiyakas, who must have been settled somewhere in the eastern part of the Panjab.

c16.s1.t5.36

⁴ Fleet, *Ind. Ant.*, XV, p. 110, note 31. The verse has been the subject of considerable discussion and different interpretation. See Bühler, *Ep. Ind.*, I, p. 186; Cunningham, *Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep.*, Vol. II (1862-65), p. 225; X, p. 101; Hoernle, *J. R. A. S.*, 1904, p. 649; Hultzsch, *Ep. Ind.*, I, p. 155.

c16.s1.t5.37

Further, Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri has brought to light a piece of evidence, which tends to show that Bhoja’s authority was recognised in Saurāṣṭra or Kāthiāwād.¹ According to the Vastrāpatha Māhātmya, a section in the Prabhāsa Khaṇḍa of the Skanda Purāṇa dealing with the sacred sites of Girnar (Vastrāpatha), there lived in ancient times a righteous king named Bhoja who ruled over Kānyakubja.² Once a Warden of the forests (Vanapāla) reported to him as follows: “Sire! I have seen a woman with the face of a doe roaming with a herd of deer in the forests at Raivataka.” The king felt curious, and collecting his forces he advanced towards Raivataka and encircled the hill with a net. The Balādhyakṣa ultimately succeeded in capturing the deer-maiden, and brought her to Kānyakubja. She then related the story of her previous births, and also dilated upon the sanctity of the waters of the Suvarṇarekhā. The king was so much impressed with what he learnt about Saurāṣṭra that he made up his mind to abdicate in favour of his son and go on a pilgrimage to its holy sites. Much of the story is no doubt absolutely unworthy of credence, but the connection of Bhoja of Kanauj with Saurāṣṭra, as evidenced by the appointment of a Vanapāla (VI, 22 f.) and sending of an army (Ib., 25 f.), appears to be the substratum of truth. Dr. Raychaudhuri even accepts the story of Bhoja’s abdication, and finds confirmation for it in the Ahar stone inscription, whch gives the dates 864-65, 865-66, 867-68, 886, 886-87, 888-89, 902-03, 904-05, although purporting to belong to the reign of Bhoja. But I venture to differ from the views of the learned Professor on this point, since the earliest known date for Mahendrapāla is 893 A. D., and the anomaly presented by the Ahar record can satisfactorily be explained by supposing with Mr. C. D. Chatterjee that “a portion of this inscription was engraved in 259 Harṣa *Saṃvat* = 865-66 A. D. during the administration of Bhoja I and other portions were added later on,” or that “there was a transfer to stone of a copy of all the deeds made on less durable materials, later than 298 H. E. = 904-05 A. D.”¹ Thus under Bhoja the kingdom of Kanauj grew to enormous dimensions, and it may be roughly defined as limited by the Satlej in the north-west; the foot of the Himālayas in the north; the western boundaries of the Pāla dominions in the east; Bundelkhand and the Vatsa territories in the south and south-east; possibly the lower course of the Narmadā and Saurāṣṭra on the south-west, and including the major portion of Rajputana on the west.

c16.s1.t5.38

¹ *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, V (1929), pp. 129-133.

c16.s1.t5.39

² Cf. “Kānyakubje Mahākṣetre rājā Bhojeti viśrutaḥ, Purā Puṇyayuge Dharmyaḥ prajādharmeṇa śāsati,” (VI, 20). It is worth noting that the past tense is used here, and the *Purāṇa* does not say in the form of a prophecy.

c16.s1.t5.40

¹ *Journal of the U. P. Historical Society*, Vol. III, pt. 2, (Sept., 1926), p. 101.

c16.s1.t5.41

Sulaiman's account

c16.s1.t5.42

Unfortunately no Bāṇa or Yuan Chwang has left a detailed record of how Bhoja organised the defence and internal administration of so vast a country in order to prevent any of its component parts flying asunder, but we have some faint echoes coming from the writings of the Arab traveller Sulaiman, who thus alludes in 851 A. D. to the king of Juzr (Gurjara), identified by scholars with the great Pratihāra ruler of Kanauj : “This king maintains numerous forces, and no other Indian prince has so fine a cavalry. He is unfriendly to the Arabs, still he acknowledges that the king of the Arabs is the greatest of kings. Among the princes of India there is no greater foe of the Muhammadan faith than he. His territories form a tongue of land. He has got riches, and his camels and horses are numerous. Exchanges are carried on in his states with silver (and gold) in dust, and there are said to be mines (of these metals) in the country. There is no country in India more safe from robbers."¹ This brief notice is all that we possess about Bhoja’s government, but it suffices to prove that the country was rich in resources and strong in political power. The king stood forth as the champion of indigenous culture, and maintained large armies so as to ensure the safety of the citizens against both external and internal dangers. The last remark is specially noteworthy, and speaks highly of Bhoja’s administration, since we might recall here that even during the palmy days of Harṣa’s rule, the kingdom continued to be infested by brigands and Yuan Chwang was stripped by them more than once.

First 137 of 185 passages. Read on

Linked texts (29)