History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c29.s1.11

v2.c29.s1.11

But the chief point in connection with the verse in the beginning of the Ātapurā inscription is whether the word Mahīdeva is to be interpreted as Brahmin or king, for the word is used in both meanings. It is possible that it means here a king as pointed out by Mohanlal Pandia in his answer to Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar; for विप्रकुलानन्दनो विप्रः seems to be incongruous and it further appears that this verse equates the name Guhadatta with Bappā. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar does not do this and thinks that Bappā is the nickname of some later king either Mahendrajit or Kālabhoja* (See also Mewad Gazetteer where Erskine adopts this view of Dr. Bhandarkar). Dr. Bhandarkar further says that Guhila is the same as Guhadatta which is not correct. In most inscriptions Guhila is the name of Bappā's son who succeeded him. Here it is necessary to point out that Guhadatta and Bappā must be the same. Dr. Bhandarkar observes "It is true that some records speak of Bappā or Bappaka as the progenitor of the family but they are comparatively much later inscriptions.” This is not correct. Both the Achaleśvara and Chitoregad inscriptions represent Bappā as the founder of the Mewad family. The Ātapurā inscription is dated V. E. 1034 or A. D. 979 and mentions no doubt Guhadatta but there is an earlier inscription of Naravāhana which is dated V. E. 1028 or A. D. 971 in which Bappā distinctly appears to be the founder. Though the inscription is broken and illegible here and there, his name appears in the beginning and the word Guhilagotranarendrachandra would point to him as the founder and no other name is given before his (See Bhavn. Ins. page 59); and since Bappaka king is to be indentified with Guhadatta we have to interpret Mahīdeva as meaning a king and not a Brahmin.