History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c17.s5.1.2

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.