History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c17.s5.1

Language: English

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.