History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c17.s5: Vijayapāla
History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c17.s5
- Language
- English
Contents
- c17.s5.1 — 5 parts
Vijayapāla
c17.s5.1.1
Like his predecessors, Devapāla also appears to have enjoyed a very short reign, for we learn from the Rajor inscription that a king named Vijayapāla was in power in Kanauj early in the year 959 A. D. This epigraph represents him as meditating on the feet of Kṣitipāladeva—a phrase commonly used in inscriptions to signify the relation of father and son⁴—and consequently the inference may safely be drawn that Vijayapāla was a brother or half-brother of Devapāla. It has, however, been a matter of some controversy among scholars whether Vijayapāla was the immediate successor of Devapāla or there were other intervening kings. Recently the latter view has been advocated by Mr. Niharranjan Ray, who thinks that between Devapāla and Vijayapāla two more kings ruled viz., Vināyakapāla II, son of Mahendrapāla II (?) and Mahīpāla II, son of Devapāla (?).¹ Vināyakapāla II is introduced in the Pratihāra genealogy on the strength of the Khajuraho inscription dated V. E. 1011 = 954 A. D., the last line of which runs as follows : "While the illustrious Vināyaka (?) pāladeva is protecting the earth, the earth is not taken possession of by the enemies, who have been annihilated."² Now, the identification of this Vināyakapāla has been a puzzle to scholars.
c17.s5.1.2
Kielhorn, the editor of the inscription, was unable to offer any conjecture, and he felt even some doubts about the correctness of his reading.³ But the above description in terms suggestive of his suzerain power, and the form of the name, which is quite clear in the facsimile, make it almost certain that he can be no other than a Pratihāra monarch. Are we, therefore, to identify him with Vināyakapāla *alias* Mahīpāla, or take him as a separate ruler? Chronological considerations go against the first alternative, as the Khajurāho inscription is dated in 954 A. D., and we know it definitely that Vināyakapāla’s successor was already on the throne in the year 946 A. D. It has, no doubt, been sometimes supposed that the name of Vināyakapāla occurred in the original record of Yaśovarman, and after the latter’s death it was set up in 954 A. D. during the reign of his successor Dhanga with the addition of some verses at the end describing his martial exploits.⁴ This assumption, however, does not appear to be cogent, for why should the name of a monarch, who was dead and gone, be retained in the “subsequent modification” of an official document made in the time of Dhanga, when Vināyakapāla was no longer “protecting the earth”? Thus we are driven to recognise the existence of a second Vināyakapāla after Devapāla’s reign. As regards his connection with the Pratīhāra line, Mr. N.
c17.s5.1.3
Ray may be right in thinking that he was the son of Mahendrapāla II, for among Indian Royalty it is not unoften the practice to give to the grandson the same name as that of the grandfather.¹ But there is just one point which seems to militate against the view that Vināyakapāla II followed Devapāla. We have already noted that Yaśovarman is represented in the same Khajurāho inscription as a “scorching fire to the Gurjaras,” and is even credited with the easy conquest of Kālañjara. If, therefore, Yaśovarman had practically wrested the independence of the Candellas, how could his successor Dhanga continue to invoke the name of the Pratīhāra king as his overlord. Perhaps the explanation to this apparent anomaly is that like the Nizam of the Deccan and the Nawabs of Oudh, who were virtually independent and yet nominally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Great Moghul at Delhi, the Candel ruler also did not all at once break off formal relations with the effete imperial power at Kanauj, but for some time maintained an outward show of submission. Now, if Vināyakapāla II was an historical reality, as appears quite likely from the foregoing discussion, who was his successor? With regard to Mahīpāla II, we are rather on uncertain ground. He has been mentioned in a stone inscription, discovered at Bayana in the Bharatpur state, which records the erection of a temple of Viṣṇu by Citralekhā,² and the reasons of his identification as a Pratihāra monarch are twofold.
c17.s5.1.4
First, he is given the imperial title of Mahārājādhirāja; and secondly, the Bayana region must have been included within the kingdom of Kanauj, since it is known with certainty that Rajor, lying further to its northwest, continued to acknowledge the authority of Kanauj till afterwards. That Bayana formed part of the kingdom of Kanauj in Vikrama year 1012 = 955 A. D., the date of the epigraph, nobody would probably deny, but the question is how far are we justified in regarding Mahīpāla as a Pratihāra from the mere title of Mahārājādhirāja? The document does not mention any of the predecessors of Mahīpāla, which is almost an uncommon feature in the records of the dynasty. Besides, it is highly improbable, although by no means impossible, that within the short space of about a decade—948 to 959 A. D.—three kings viz., Devapāla, Vināyakapāla II, Mahīpāla II, ruled in close succession, and the fourth, Vijayapāla, also began his career. Presumably Mahīpāla was a vassal chief, and this supposition is doubtless to some extent strengthened by the evidence of the Rajor inscription, which shows that even the feudatories had then begun to adopt the so-called imperial titles of Parameśvara and Mahārājādhirāja on account of the decadent condition of the imperial government at Kanauj.¹ Similarly, we cannot include Vatsarāja into the dynastic list merely on the strength of a fragmentry stone inscription of the Vikrama year 1013 = 956 A.
c17.s5.1.5
D., discovered at Osia in the Jodhpur state.² It is indeed noteworthy that this record calls him a Pratihāra, but he may have been only a scion of some local branch of the family, or a gubernatorial representative over whom the control of Kanauj had become very loose¹. The truth of the whole matter is that although the historicity of a second Vināyakapāla may be accepted, there is nothing definite in our present state of knowledge to support the insertion of Mahīpāla II or Vatsarāja II into the Imperial line.
c17.s5.2
⁴ It may also sometimes denote the relation of brother.
c17.s5.3
¹ *Ind. Ant.*, Oct. 1928, pp. 230-34.
c17.s5.4
² *Ep. Ind.*, I, p. 135.
c17.s5.5
³ *Ibid.*, p. 124.
c17.s5.6
⁴ *Jour. Dep. Lett.*, X, p. 61.
c17.s5.7
¹ Ind. Ant., Oct., 1928, p. 233.
c17.s5.8
² Ann. Prog. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind., Western circle, 1919, pp. 43-44; Ep. Ind., XXII (July, 1933), pp. 120-27.
c17.s5.9
¹ See Infra.
c17.s5.10
² *Ann. Prog. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind.*, Western circle, 1907, p. 15. This record should not be confused with that of Nāgabhaṭa II's father.
c17.s5.11
¹ This suggestion perhaps receives some confirmation from the Rajor inscription, which represents another feudatory, Mathanadeva, as belonging to the Gurjara-Pratīhāra family.
c17.s5.12
To turn to Vijayapāla, it is difficult to ascertain the exact limits of his reign, but we know that he must have come to the throne about 959 A. D., and ceased to rule long before 1019 A. D., when his successor Rājyapāla was killed in battle. Thus the period between 959 and 1019 A. D. covers two reigns; and if we, therefore, assign thirty years to each—leaving a slight margin for error—the date of Vijayapāla’s death would fall sometime about the year 988-89 A. D. The gradual process of decline, which began in the time of Devapāla with the rise of the Candellas, continued steadily under Vijayapāla’s rule, so that when the sceptre dropped from his hand, the mighty kingdom of the Pratīhāras had become a ghost of its former self, and on its ruins new states had appeared. Among the earliest defections was that of the south-western province of Saurāṣṭra (Kāthiāwāḍ), which along with Gujarat came under the Solanki or Caulukya dynasty founded by Mūlarāja at Anhilwāḍ (Anhilla-pāṭaka) about the middle of the tenth century A. D.² The Kādi plates³ and the Gujarat chronicles describe him as a son of Mahārājādhirāja Rāji, and we may, therefore, suppose that Mūlarāja was not a mere upstart adventurer, but belonged to some notable family.¹ The Kādi inscription also states that he acquired the Sāraswata-maṇḍala by the prowess of his arms.² The Vaḍnagar praśasti³ further informs us that Mūlarāja “made the fortune of the kingdom of the Cāpoṭkaṭa princes, whom he took captive at will, an object of enjoyment for the multitude of the learned, of his relatives” etc., which shows that he must have aggrandised himself in southern Rajputana—the homelands of the opponents named. In northern Rajputana also the authority of the Pratīhāras must have been only nominal, for Mathanadeva, son of Sāvaṭa of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra lineage (Gurjara-Pratīhārānvayaḥ), adopts the imperial titles of Mahārājādhirāja and Parameśvara in the Rajor inscription discovered among the ruins of Parnagar in the Alwar state, while in the same breath he represents himself as a feudatory of Vijayapāla.⁴
c17.s5.13
² According to Merutunga’s *Vicāraśreṇī*, Mūlarāja ascended the throne in V. E. 1017 = A. D. 961 (*Bom. Gaz.*, vol. I, pt. I, p. 156). But the Sambhar inscription gives the Vikrama date 998 or 941 A. D. for the event (*Ind. Ant.*, 1929, pp. 235, 236, verse 8).
c17.s5.14
³ *Ind. Ant.*, VI, pp. 191, 192.
c17.s5.15
¹ Ibid., p. 181 f; Bom. Gaz., Vol. I, pt. I, p. 156 f.
c17.s5.16
² Ind. Ant., VI, p. 191, line 7.
c17.s5.17
³ Ep. Ind., I, pp. 296, 301, verse 5; Ibid., X, p. 77.
c17.s5.18
⁴ Ep. Ind., III, p. 266.
c17.s5.19
The kingdom of Jejākabhukti rapidly grew in power and saw its palmy days under Dhanga (circa 950-1000 A. D.), who is alleged in the Mhow inscription to have attained to “supreme lordship after inflicting a defeat over the king of Kānyakubja.”⁵ The success of the Candellas against the Pratīhāras is further confirmed by a Khajurāho inscription, wherein we are told that Dhanga ruled the earth “playfully acquired by the action of his long and strong arms, as far as Kālañjara, and as far as Bhāsvat situated (?) on the banks of the river Mālava; from here to the banks of the river Kālindī (Jumnā), and from here also to the frontiers of the Cedi country, and even as far as that mountain called Gopa (Gopādri), which is the unique abode of marvel.”¹ The Sāsbahū inscription, however, attributes the conquest of Gwalior to the Kacchapaghāta prince Vajradāman, who is said to have “put down the rising valour of the ruler of Gādhinagara, and his proclamation drum ... resounded in the fort of Gopādri.”² As his only known date 977 A. D.³ falls within the limits of Dhanga’s reign, we may assume that Vajradāman was a local feudatory chief of the Candella ruler, whom he assisted in the conquest of Gwalior. The loss of this ancient possession must have dealt a severe blow to the strength of the Pratihāras, as thereby the Candellas got hold of a strategic position, which they could well use as a base for further encroachments. Indeed, it is likely that towards the close of his reign Dhanga carried his arms as far as Benares, since a copper plate of (Vikrama) year 1055 = 998 A. D. records that he made a grant of the village of Yulli (?) situated in the Uṣāravāha to the Bhaṭṭa Yaśodhara at Kāśikā or Benares.⁴
c17.s5.20
⁵ Ibid., I, pp. 197, 203, verse 3. Cf. “yaḥ Kānyakubjaṁ narendraṁ samara bhuvi vijitya prāpa sāmrājyaṁ-uccaiḥ.”
c17.s5.21
¹ Ibid., I, pp. 124, 134, verse 45.
c17.s5.22
² Ind. Ant., XV, pp. 36, 41.
c17.s5.23
³ J. A. S. B., XXXI, p. 393.
c17.s5.24
⁴ Ind. Ant., XVI, pp. 203, 206.
c17.s5.25
Next, the Cedis, who occupied the country between the Candellas and the Cālukya territories, appear to have given some trouble to the decadent power at Kanauj, for the Goharwa plates of the year 1047 A. D. affirm that the Cedi king, Lakṣamanarājadeva, who must have flourished sometime in the latter half of the tenth century being three generations anterior to the issuer of the grant, defeated the kings of Vangāla, Kasmīra, and Gurjara etc.⁵ The Cedis had also intervened in Imperial affairs previously, when Kokalla I espoused the cause of Bhoja II, and so we may be sure that Gurjara here refers to the Pratihāra monarch.
c17.s5.26
⁵ Ep. Ind., XI, p. 142, v. 8.
c17.s5.27
As regards Malwa, it was governed between the years V. E. 1005 = A. D. 949 and V. E. 1029 = A. D. 973 by Sīyaka-Harṣa of the Paramāra dynasty,¹ who, according to the Udepur inscription, “took away in battle the wealth of Khoṭṭiga,”² rightly identified by Bühler with his Rāṣṭrakuṭa namesake (circa 955-970), successor of Kṛṣṇa III (c. 940-955 A. D.). Sīyaka-Harṣa was followed by another powerful ruler named Muñja alias Vākpati whose kown dates range from 974 to 994 A. D. He is credited in the same Udepur *praśasti* with many notable victories over the Karṇāṭas, Lāṭas, Keralas, Colas and Cedis³; we may, therefore, safely assume that he was, like his predecessor, free from any foreign control. Malwa must have overthrown the Pratīhāra authority and declared its independence soon after the death of Mahendrapāla II, for we know from the Indore plates that even as early as V. E. 1031 = 974 A. D. the three immediate predecessors of Muñja⁴ are given the usual titles of Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja, and Parameśvara generally signifying sovereign status.
c17.s5.28
¹ See the Harasola grant (*Ep. Ind.*, XIX, p. 226 f.) for the former date and Dhanapāla’s *Pāiya-lacchi*, v. 198, for the latter.
c17.s5.29
² *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 235, 237, v. 12.
c17.s5.30
³ *Ibid.*, v. 14.
c17.s5.31
⁴ *Ind. Ant.*, VI, p. 51. The Udepur *praśasti* gives a longer genealogy by duplicating names, but Dr. Hoernle remarks it is mythical (*J. R. A. S.*, 1904, p. 657, note 1; see also C. V. Vaidya, H.M.H.I., Vol. II, pp. 118, 123; D. B. Diskalkar, Proc. & Trans. 3rd Or. Conf. (Madras, 1924), p. 303 f. See, however, D. C. Ganguly, *History of the Paramāra Dynasty* (Dacca, 1933), pp. 29-30 and note; Dr. H. C. Ray, *Dy. Hist. North. Ind.*, II, p. 844 f. for the contrary view).
c17.s5.32
The Cāhamānas of Sākambharī or Sambhar, originally feudatories of the Pratīhāras⁵, also took advantage of the prevailing confusion and made themselves supreme in Central Rajputana. This is evident from the Harṣa stone inscription, which gives us the Vikrama year 1030 = 973 A. D. for Vigraharāja II,¹ and represents him as having "rescued both the fortune of his family and the fortune of victory from the distress which had befallen them."² Indeed, if the "universal sovereign of the earth in Ragu's race" (Raghukula-bhu-cakravarti) mentioned in verse 19 of the above record, is identical with one of the later Pratīhāra monarchs, as supposed by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar³ on the authority of Rājaśekhara, the power and prestige of the Cāhamānas must have grown considerably even during the time of Vigraharāja's predecessor, Simharāja, for otherwise how are we to explain the unique circumstance of the suzerain personally visiting his feudatory in order to secure the release of the princes captured by the latter in his war against the Tomara chief Salavaṇa.
c17.s5.33
⁵ See *ante* under Nāgabhaṭa II.
c17.s5.34
¹ *Ep. Ind.*, II, pp. 124, 129.
c17.s5.35
² *Ibid.*, pp. 122, 127, verse 20; *Ind. Ant.*, XLII (1913), p. 62, v. 20.
c17.s5.36
³ *Ind. Ant.*, XLII (1913), pp. 59, 62; see also Dr. H. C. Ray, *Dy. Hist. North. Ind.*, Vol. II, p. 1064. Kielhorn, however, thinks that the reference is to Rāma or Viṣṇu and the taking away of Simharāja to heaven (*Ep. Ind.*, II, p. 127 and note).
c17.s5.37
Perhaps the Guhilas (Guhilots) also broke off all relations with the Pratīhāras not long after the Vikrama year 1003 or 946 A. D., the date of the Partabgarh inscription, for we learn from the Atpur inscription that Mahārājādhirāja Bhaṭṛipaṭṭa II, who is recorded in the former epigraph to have made a perpetual land grant to the deity Indrarājāditya-deva of Ghoṇṭāvarṣikā in V. E. 999 = 943 A. D., married a Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess,⁴ which clearly indicates that he had formed an alliance with their traditional rivals. Lastly, the kingdom of Bhatinda¹ came into prominence in the Panjab, and gradually extended “in length from Sirhind to Lumghan and in breadth from the kingdom of Kashmir to Mooltan.”² Thus within the course of half a century the disintegration of the Pratihāra empire was almost complete, and once more Northern India presented its normal aspect of a group of independent and mutually warring states.
c17.s5.38
⁴ *Ind. Ant.* 1910, p. 191, verse 4.
c17.s5.39
¹ At first the Śāhis had their capital at Uda-bhāṇḍapur or Waihind, but probably owing to the pressure of the advancing Moslems it was shifted to Bhatinda.
c17.s5.40
² Briggs, Firishta (*History of the Rise of the Mohamedan Power*), Vol. I, p. 15.