History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s1: Guhilot Genealogy

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s1

Language: English

v3.c34.s1.46 — 5 parts

Guhilot Genealogy

v3.c34.s1.10

10 Vijayasinha (c. 1094 A. D.) Insc. 1107 A. D.

v3.c34.s1.20

20 Jaitrasiṅha (c. 1213) Insc. 1213 and 1222 D. A.

v3.c34.s1.22

²² Samarasiṅha (c. 1267) Insc. 1278, 83, 87 A. D.

v3.c34.s1.23

∗ From 11 we take 11 years 'average to suit the date known from inscriptions for Jaitrasinha. † From 14 two branches started of which we take the elder Rāwa lbranch.

Proceeding to the case of individual kings we have first to observe that the Abu inscription differs a little from its compeer the Chitorgadh inscription drawn up by the same writer Vedaśarman in that the latter gives the two kings Ambāprasāda and Śuchivarman after Śaktikumāra and before Naravarman. Further it records of Śaktikumāra that he destroyed the enemies of religion, terrible like Daityas. There is here plainly a reference to the Mahomedans. We have taken the date of this king from the Ātpurā inscription as ruling from 977 A. D. in which year Sabuktagin came to the throne of Ghazni and then that danger to India began which finally engulfed it. It is possible to believe that Śaktikumāra may have taken part in the first confederacy of Hindu kings convened by Jaipāla of Kabul against Sabuktagin in 989 A. D. (Smith's Oxford H. I.)

v3.c34.s1.25

The Chitorgadh inscription stops with Naravarman and gives the subsequent genealogy in the Abu inscription and we have, therefore, not included it in our authorities; but even though the Abu inscription does not mention Ambāprasāda and Śuchivarman we have to take them in the list of kings from the Chitorgadh inscription of the same author. This also proves that the Abu inscription list may make some further omissions as we actually see. Ambāprasāda is a strange name in this list of Guhilot kings and one might have omitted it but for its mention in the Chitorgadh inscription. Yogarāja (no. 6) and Hanspāla (no. 8) are also strange names in this line and they are not given in the Abu inscription but they are given in the Raṇapurā inscription (the latter name being given as Yaśapāla). These three names, however, are confirmed by their mention in a Haihaya stone inscription to be noticed in their history. There is a copper-plate inscription of Vijayasinha as has been already noticed dated St. 1164. Then Vijayasinha (no. 13) is given as Vikramasinha in Abu and Bāṇapurā inscriptions. Raṇasinha or Karṇasinha is not mentioned in the Abu inscription but he is mentioned in the Bāṇapurā inscription. It is probable that this inscription mentions names which were subsequently invented by bards and one may suspect if these names are names of real kings. The Abu inscription again does not record the tradition that from Raṇasinha two branches sprang, the elder called Rāwat and the younger called Rānā and established at Śisoda. But this tradition cannot be doubted as we have to explain how former kings of Chitor were called Rāwals and later kings from Hammira were called Rānās. The latest Rāyasāgar inscription embodies this tradition by stating that there were 26 Rāwals in all from Bappā Rāwal.*

v3.c34.s1.26

From Raṇasiṃha we come at names which are the same in all inscriptions except the first Bhīmasinha who is given as Khemsiṃ in Abu and Raṇapurā inscriptions. These kings were nearly contemporary with or immediately preceded the Abu inscription and there could have been no mistake about them. The probable date of Sāmantasiṃha is 1179 A. D. and he may have been a contemporary of Pṛthvīrāja III. Pandit Gaurishankar thinks that the amplifier or forger of the Rāsā mistook Sāmanta for Samara and thus committed the blunder of making Samarasiṃha of A. D. 1282, a contemporary of Pṛthvīrāja.

v3.c34.s1.27

∗ The name Rāwal was adopted from Bappā who was a Rāwal or small king. The later kings were called Rānās as they came from a minor branch, Rānā meaning a subordinate king as in Himalayan states. But the name Rānā being taken by the illustrious kings of Udepur, now bears a higher meaning in Rajputana.

v3.c34.s1.28

THE PARAMĀRAS OF DHAR—BHOJA.

v3.c34.s1.29

The Paramāras of Malwa were already a great power at the beginning of this sub-period, Munja and Sindhurāja having already established its independence and glory. But Malwa rose to still greater glory and renown, in fact its greatest, during the reign of Bhoja. When Munja died poets were in despair for the goddess of Sarasvatī though not for Lakshmī or Indrāṇī. The goddesses of wealth and valour might find their favourites but the goddess of learning was now, they thought, without support.* But Bhoja falsified their misgivings and in him the goddesses of wealth, valour and wisdom were equally well-seated. Bhoja in real history typified the best Kshatriya of Bhāratavarsha who cultivated both Śāstra and Śastra like Rāma and Yudhishthira of legendary days or Vikrama and Hāla of later legends. Bhoja not only patronised literary men but was a great author himself and he was master of many and diversified subjects. He studied Astronomy, Alaṅkāra (poetics), Architecture, Asceticism (Yoga) and Grammar and on each of these subjects he has left works which are still treated as authoritative. His Sarasvatī-Kanthābharaṇa on poetics, Rāja Mārtanda on asceticism and Rāja Mṛigāṅka Karaṇa on astronomy are well known and speak of his high proficiency in these sciences. As a learned man, therefore, his fame has been established in history on a permanent foundation. He built a college for Sanskrit studies at Dhar in which Sanskrit aphorisms on various subjects were inscribed on stone. The college was converted into a mosque by Mahomedans; and of still subsists at Dhar being known as the Kamāl Maula mosque. The slabs of stone which were inscribed with Sanskrit works were used for flooring and are now so rubbed over that nothing inscribed thereon is now legible. But close to this Sarasvatī-sadana or Bhāratī-bhuvana there is an old well which is still called Akkal-kuvī or well of wisdom; and it reminds us of the time when the

v3.c34.s1.30

*लक्ष्मर्यास्यति गोविन्दे वीरश्रीर्वीरवेत्मनि । गते मुञ्जे यशःपुंजे निरालंबा सरस्वती ॥ learned men who studied in that college and held disputations in that hall, drank water from this well and advanced in wisdom and knowledge. These and other details about Bhoja's literary greatness given by Col. Luard and Mr. Lele in their book on the Paramāras of Dhar and Malwa are indeed interesting and we make no apology for giving such other facts here as are necessary to be given in this history from this work as every available source of information has been utilized by the learned authors of this book to give a connected and detailed history of the Paramāras of Dhar.

v3.c34.s1.31

Bhoja is mentioned by several well-known writers as an author on Hindu Law also though no work of his on that subject is now available. He is so mentioned by Śūlanatha in the Prāyaścittaviveka, by Raghunandana and even by Vijñāneśvara in his famous Mitāksharā. This not only shows the versatility of Bhoja's genius but also points to his being a great ruler. He could not have been an author on Hindu Law without being thoroughly acquainted with civil administration as with religion since Dharma or law with the Hindus includes both. We know that he had done much to educate his subjects and to promote their secular welfare. He built a great tank known as Bhoja-Sara by damming the spaces between hills encircling a vast area and used it probably for irrigation. His two grants found show the terse nature of his government records which we will notice further on; but it is pertinent to remark here that his system of government and administration was typical.

v3.c34.s1.32

His political greatness is not, however, equally well-known and has not as yet been ascertained with exactitude. He came to the throne about 1010 A. D. (Col. Luard and Mr. Lele think that he may have come to the throne even earlier) and he ruled for about forty years at least. Sir Vincent Smith places his death in about 1060 A. D. while Pandit Gauri-shankar places it sometime before 1055 A. D. (St 1112). He had fights with many Indian kings, notably with the king of Chedi Indranātha, Joggala I and Bhīma of Gujarat and with kings of Karnāta and Lāta, and Gurjaras and Turushkas, as stated in the Udepur inscription (Ep. II p. 222). We will first speak of his fight with the Turks. As this inscription states immediately before that Munja had conquered a Hūna king, it seems clear that the record distinguishes between Hūnas and Turks and does not confound them. The Hūna king, therefore, must have been a Hindu king as there were no Huns in India at that time and as Hūna is the name of a Rajput clan also. Munja, therefore, does not seem to have taken part in the Rajput confederacy against Amir Sabuktagin, as one is likely to think from the period of his reign viz. 997 to 1010 A. D. In what campaign of Mahmud of Ghazni Bhoja fought against the Turks it is difficult to determine. He certainly was not one of those who fought with Mahmud at Somnath for he is here said to have defeated the Turks. Perhaps as suggested by Col. Luard and Mr. Lele on the srength of a statement in Tabkat-i-Akabari, that Mahmud after conquering the Hindus at Somnath went with his plunder through the western part of the desert of Multan as he learnt "that Paramāradeva one of the greatest kings of Hindustan was preparing to intercept him", this may be construed into a defeat of the Turks by Bhoja. Of course the Paramāradeva described as one of the great kings of Hindustan by Tabakat-i-Akabari must refer to Bhoja and none else. And inscription-writers are usually panegyrists and Mahmud's avoiding Bhoja may well be construed by them into a defeat. It is further likely that this event is referred to by the Udepur Praśasti as Bhoja is said therein to have also built the temple of Somnath. Probably Mahmud had not only broken the image but also demolished the temple of Somnath and it is certainly to the credit of Bhoja's greatness as a warrior and a devotee of Śiva that he should prepare to intercept the defiler of the temple which probably had just been built by him (See p. 91).

v3.c34.s1.33

If we take the date of accession of Bhoja to be earlier than 1010 A. D. it is possible that he may have sent a contingent to the forces of Hindu kings collected by Ānandapāla in 1008 and the inscription speaks of Turks and others being defeated by contingents or general of Bhoja not by Bhoja himself. But in no other contest with Mahmud of Ānandapāla the Turks were defeated and hence the words of the Udepur inscription cannot be taken to refer to their earlier conflicts.

v3.c34.s1.34

Bhoja's political relations and conflicts with surrounding Hindu kingdoms have been well described by Col. Luard and Mr. Lele in their book using all the available authorities. The kingdom of Malwa on the east was conterminous with the kingdom of Chedi, on the north with that of Chitod, on the west with that of the Chālukyas of Anhilwad and on the south with the kingdom of the Chālukyas of Kalyan and as neighbours are alternately friends and foes, Bhoja had often to fight with these kingdoms except the Guhilot kingdom or Chitod. The Guhilots never aspired to imperial power as stated before and never tried to extend their territory. Hence we have no mention of Bhoja's wars with Chitod. But with Chedi, Anahilwad and Karṇāṭa he had constant fights with intervening periods of peace and these wars were alternately successful and disastrous, the enemy usually coming as far as and even occupying Dhar. In Gujarat his foe was Bhīma who ruled from 1021-1063. While Kulchandra, a Jain general of Bhoja, once invaded Gujarat when Bhīma was absent and occupied his capital Anahilwad (Patan), he plundered it so completely that the sack of Kulachandra has become proverbial. Bhīma in return took Dhar by a sudden raid with his cavalry and plundered it. But Bhīma and Bhoja were not foes long and they had even vakils of each in the other's court, Dāmodara an envoy of Anahilwad "being well-known as a witty and clever diplomat".

v3.c34.s1.35

The enmity with the Chedi kingdom on the east and with Karṇāṭa on the south was almost hereditary and more disastrous, the Chedi Haihayas and the Karṇāṭa Chālukyas being usually related by marriage. A sister of Yuvarāja of Chedi was the mother of Tailapa of Karṇāṭa and we have seen already (Vol. II) that Muñja constantly fought with Tailapa and was eventually taken prisoner and even put to death by him. Gāṅgeyadeva was Yuvarāja's successor and ruled from 1038 to 1042 and his successor was Karṇadeva who was the most powerful of the Haihaya line and had a long reign from 1042 to 1072. Bhoja's contemporaries at Kalyan in the south were Jayasinha (1018 to 1040) and Someśvar (1040 to 1069). It seems that Jayasinha once advanced on Dhar and defeated Bhoja an event mentioned in an inscription of Jayasinha¹ (I. A. Vol. V p. 15). Bhoja must have defeated this king in turn as also Gāṅgeya sometime about 1040 which event might have given rise to the saying now current in Malwa “Kahān Rājā Bhoja, dur Kahān Gaṅgā Teli” (originally it must have been Gaṅgeya of Telangana, as ingeniously suggested by Mr. Lele, Telangana being a subordinate of Chedi).* Whatever this may be Someśvara Jayasiṅha’s successor again invaded Malwa and signally defeated Bhoja. This event is related in the Vikramāṅkadevacharita by Bilhaṇa (I. 91). Later, Bhoja may have attacked Someśvara and defeated him. This or the earlier defeat may have been referred to in the Udepur Praśasti noted before.

v3.c34.s1.36

¹ The date of this inscription is by misprint given as 900 Śaka in Mr. Lele's work. It must be 941 Śaka or 1019 A. D. as the former date is inconsistent with Bhoja's period of rule.

v3.c34.s1.37

These wars it may be noted did not diminish to any extent the power of Malwa or of the kingdoms contending with it; for they were not waged with any desire of aggression; and the four states Malwā, Chedi, Karṇāṭa and Gujarat were qually powerful and their rulers also equally able. They on the contrary kept up the martial qualities of these rulers and their soldiers. But it seems that about the time of Bhoja’s death (probably after, not a little before, as the wording of the Udepur Praśasti is quite clear†), the combined invasion of Malwa by Bhīma of Gujarat and Karṇa of Chedi created disorder and diminished the power of the kingdom of Malwa. The successor of Bhoja, Jayasiṅha went to the court of Āhavamalla Someśvara of Kalyan for refuge and he forgetting the hereditary feud between Malwa and Karṇāṭa lent him aid and enabled him to regain the throne of his ancestors at Dhār as stated in Vik. by Bilhaṇa (III 67). This shows that in those days Indian states did not fight with each other for extension of territory. This event further shows that people in every country wished to be ruled by some one of its hereditary ruling family. As stated in Volume II, p. 221, even Arab writers have recorded that when a king conquers another kingdom he always places on the throne some one belonging to the family of the fallen king. “The inhabitants could not suffer it otherwise.”

v3.c34.s1.38

* Karṇa is distinctly called lord of Trikaliṅga in one of his inscriptions (Ep. Ind. 11). † > तत्रादित्यप्रतापे गतवति सदनं स्वर्गिणां भर्गभक्ते ।

v3.c34.s1.39

व्याप्ता धारेव धात्री रिपुतिमिरभरैर्मौलिलोकस्तदाभूत् ॥

v3.c34.s1.40

Even this little feeling of nationality gradually disappeared in this sub-period (we see in this instance Jayasinha being to be placed on the throne of Malwā by a third king), for reasons we shall explain later on. Bhoja's death must have occurred before 1055 A. D. as Jayasinha's grant issued from Dhārā in that year has been found (Ep. Ind. III P. 46) wherein he declares himself to be a son of Bhoja. It is inexplicable how even in his third edition of E. H. I. (1914), Sir Vincent Smith gives 1060 A. D. as the date of Bhoja's death; as no authority is quoted here we are unable to discuss this date further.* Bhoja conquered Konkan in St. 1076 or 1019 or the year before as appears plainly from his grant of that year (Ep. In. XI.). Why Bhoja fought with Konkan in his early age does not appear (he must have been about 20 at that time) and how he went so far from his kingdom remains to be solved though the fact of the conquest cannot be denied. Probably this was an offshoot of his first war with Vikramāditya V (1009-1018) whom he is said to have taken prisoner and put to death as stated by Col. Luard and Lele. But if this event is true, Bhoja might have made more of this affair in his inscription than his conquest of Konkan the king of which was less important than the king of Karṇāta, this war being dated, if true, about the same time. But these wars are practically of no interest to the general reader of Indian history and need not, therefore, be investigated further.

v3.c34.s1.41

The war with Karṇadeva and Bhīma which immediately preceded or followed Bhoja's death is, however, of great importance and we will examine the authorities mentioned carefully. It seems to us that a misconception has arisen here from the story given by Merutuṅga that Bhīma and Karṇa conjointly attacked Dhārā, conquered it and put to flight Bhoja who eventually died. It is notorious that these Prabandhas give fanciful tales of famous kings which require to be carefully sifted. Keilhorn first thought that the story given by Merutuṅga is supported by a verse in the Udepur praśasti (E. II). He subsequently however in giving a similar verse from the Nagpur Praśasti (Ep. Ind. II) expressed the caution that the story was not likely and that various arguments could be adduced against the truth of the version. We think it quite unbelievable that such a powerful king as Bhoja could have been attacked and defeated in this way and that his end was miserable. On verse 9 of the Udepur Praśasti, Kielhorn wrongly remarked that it virtually admits that Bhoja finally succumbed to his foreign foes, as the verse simply says that Dhārā was enveloped in darkness *after* Bhoja had left this world (when he whose valour was as great as that of the sun, the devotee of Śiva, had gone to heaven*). Similarly in editing the Nagpur Praśasti Kielhorn observed "Bhojadeva's end was unfortunate but thought it necessary now to state that the story of Merutuṅga was not quite reliable. Now even here the wording of the Nagpur Praśasti does not indicate that Bhoja's end was unfortunate: "When Bhoja became a brother of Indra (died) and when the kingdom was beset with trouble"‡ shows that Bhoja died peacefully and trouble arose afterwards. Neither record expresses any tinge of sorrow about the end of Bhoja. It seems, therefore, clear that it was only after Bhoja's death that his foes thought it a proper opportunity to advance against Malwa. Bhoja's son and successor Jayasinha was the king whose end seems to have been unfortunate as we shall see further on. In short the Nagpur and Udepur Praśastis do not lend any support to the story of Merutuṅga that Bhoja's end was unfortunate. Unfortunately the story is still retained in the 3rd Ed. of Sir Vincent Smith's history and has, therefore, to be refuted. There are further arguments to show why the story of Merutuṅga is concocted. Not only do the records of Chedi Haihayas not speak of this supposed successful attack on such a famous king as Bhoja but the records of Gujarat Chālukyas also do not mention this exploit of Bhīma. In fact in their many records Bhīma's name goes without any epithet while the name of Jayasinha Siddharāja is always extolled with the expression 'the conqueror of Avantinātha.' Had Bhīma conquered Bhoja, that exploit, the summit of his glorious career, would certainly have been considered higher than that of Jayasinha, in conquering a minor king of Avantī. But further the Nagpur Praśasti does not mention Bhīma at all when it mentions that Dhārā was attacked immediately after Bhoja's death. It mentions Karṇa of Chedi and Karṇāṭa who were either leagued together or were contending with each other for the overlordship of Malwa. This point we will discuss later on but this statement in the Nagpur Praśasti which makes no mention of Bhīma is sufficient to discredit Merutuṅga who probably wrote to please the Gujarat kings and concocted stories of their exploits. In conclusion, therefore, we believe that Bhoja's end was peaceful and that foes attacked Dhārā after his death.

v3.c34.s1.42

∗ The probable authorities viz: Taraṅgiṇī and Vikramāṅkacharita have been duly noticed and explained by Col. Luard and Lele in their book on Paramaras (pp. 23-28).

v3.c34.s1.43

∗ तत्रादित्यप्रतापे गतवति सवनं स्वर्गिणां भर्गभक्ते ।

v3.c34.s1.44

‡ तस्मिन्वासवबन्धुतामुपगते राज्ये च कुम्भाकुले ।।

v3.c34.s1.45

Another misconception associated with this event is that the Gāhadavāla king Chandradeva assisted in—indeed effected—"the quelling of the anarchy which resulted in the defeat and death of Bhoja." This misconception has arisen on a misconstruction of the verses in praise of the Gāhadavāla king Chandradeva in two Gāhadavāla grants. The allusion to Bhoja in the grant of Madanapāla (Ind. Ant. XIV p. 103) is explicit but the verse cannot be construed in the sense that the Gahadavāla king Chandra had anything to do with the death, or the anarchy which followed the death, of Bhoja nor can the verse in the other record (Ind. Ant. XVIII p. 11) be so construed. (Their correct construction we will discuss presently). Moreover the date of the rise of Chandradeva Gāhadavāla does not coincide with the date of Bhoja's death about 1055 A. D. His rise must be and has been dated much later that is about 1080 A. D. And lastly there could have been no necessity for his interference, since while Karṇadeva of Chedi was the aggressor and the creator of anarchy, Someśvara of Karṇāṭaka was the friend of the Paramāra king as stated further on by Luard and Lele at p. 15 (though at page 27 we have the contradictory remark that Jayasiṃha, Bhoja's successor, was installed king at Dhar by Karṇa and Bhīma themselves). The Prabandhakāras have made many imaginary statements but even they do not appear to have brought in the Gāhadavāla (or Rathod) king Chandradeva and we may safely say that this idea has been suggested by a misconstruction of the two verses above referred to.

v3.c34.s1.46.1

Bhoja was one of the great monarchs of India whose fame has been established in the annals of Indian history for all time to come. He was not only an independent king in his own country Malwa but his power was acknowledged throughout India. This has not been sufficiently realised. In the Udepur Praśasti he is said to rule the whole of India from the Himalayas to Rāma's bridge. This is no doubt untrue literally; but in ancient times imperial power did not mean in India actual rule but indicated overlordship only. Such praise when recorded in the inscriptions of the family itself would be treated merely as a hyperbole of the family bards; but when the praise is bestowed in the records of other kingly families the praise must be admitted to be based on truth. And we have such confirmation of this praise in the inscriptions of the imperial Gāhadavālas themselves. The two verses in the grants of Madanapāla and Govindachandra which have been, as above stated, misunderstood contain clear proof that Bhoja was for a time acknowledged as supreme king of India. The verse in the second grant (Ind. Ant. XIV p.

v3.c34.s1.46.2

103) states,* "When Śrī Bhoja bhūpa became a guest of the eyes of the women of the gods and when Karṇa remained only in his renown and the earth was troubled, the husband whom the earth chose from love and the protector in whom she placed confidence was king Chandradeva." This clearly means that the two great wielders of imperial power on earth (the Indian land) who immediately preceded Chandradeva were Bhoja and Karṇa. This Bhoja could not be Bhoja of Pratīhāra Imperial line of kings as he had long passed away (A. D. 840-890 vide Vol. II p. 113) and must be Bhoja of Malwa (who passed away in 1055 A. D). The Karṇa referred to may be taken to be the Karṇadeva of the Chālukyas of Anhilwād who reigned from 1063 to 1093 A. D. or Karṇa son of Gāṅgeyadeva king of Chedi. The former seems somewhat doubtful for the sovereignty of India is said to have passed to Chandradeva after Karna's death. The Karna of Gujarat seems to have passed away in the nineties of the 11th century; and he is not extolled so much as his successor Jayasinha Siddhārāja; while Karna of Chedi though the most powerful monarch of his line and is said to have conquered Malwa after Bhoja's death, yet he reigned long and seems to have been alive when Chandradeva rose to power about 1080 A. D. This verse says that Chandradeva attained imperial power when Karna passed away.

v3.c34.s1.46.3

Whatever may be the explanation of this difficulty, this verse does not speak of the land of Malwa for Malwa never acknowledged Chandradeva as king. It speaks plainly of imperial power in the whole of India, for the three kings Bhoja, Karna and Chandra were actual kings in three separate kingdoms viz: Malwa, Chedi and Kanauj. The trouble referred to in the word Kshmātyaya is the same as that referred to in the more general wording of the verse in the first record of the Gāhadavālas (Ind. Ant. XVIII p. 11) which may be translated as follows* “King Chandradeva who destroyed the darkness of violent and bold warriors and who allayed the troubles of all peoples by his greater valour”. This refers plainly to the trouble caused to the whole people of India by the raids of the ferocious Turks. In fact it seems that Bhoja had also contributed his quota to the allaying of this trouble and hence it is that he is remembered as the first king to whom India looked to for redress and afterwards to Karna the king of Chedi, Bhoja ruling upto 1055 and Karna later and the mantle of removing the oppression of the foreigners fell in the third instance on Chandradeva who as shown later on in Kanauj history, for this purpose, removed the incapable Pratihāra king on the imperial throne of Kanauj and established his dynasty there.

v3.c34.s1.46.4

Viewed in this light the praise bestowed upon Bhoja by the Udepur Praśasti that he was lord of the whole of India does not seem hyperbolical, supported as it is by this outside testimony of a Gāhadvāla inscription. Indeed the next verse in the Udepur Praśasti appears in another light from this standpoint and when it says that Bhoja conquered the king of Gurjaras, it refers not to Bhīma the king of what is now Gujarat, but to one of the Pratihāra kings of Kanauj who are styled in records of other states of that period as kings of Gurjaras (See Vol. II p. 98, 163). In fact modern Gujarat came to be called so probably at the end of the next century as we shall ourselves show later on and Gurjaras in this verse means very probably Pratihāra kings of Kanauj who had become effete and even dependents and allies of the Turks. It seems, therefore, probable that Bhoja had not only defeated Gāṅgeyadeva in the east but also the weak Pratihāra king and successor of Rājyapāl of Kanauj and also the Turks who assisted him. He thus freed the land of Northern India from the troubles of the foreign and irreligious rule of the Turks. The verse declares that mere contingents or generals sent by Bhoja defeated these kings and it seems very probable that Bhoja had sent forces as far north as the Panjab and Delhi.

v3.c34.s1.46.5

Although, therefore, Bhoja did not, like Samudragupta to whom Sir Vincent Smith compares him, take a world-conquering expedition through India, his power was felt and acknowledged all over the country and it is this which must have enabled him to build Śiva temples in such distant places as Somnāth, Rameśvara, Suṇḍira (east coast?) and Kedāra, in the four quarters of India as he is described to have done.* That he built a temple of Mahākāla in his own kingdom needs no mention but that he was allowed to build temples to god Śiva whose devout devotee he was, in such foreign lands and at so great a distance, testifies both to his political power and his prosperity as also his organising capacity. One is reminded here of the same power, prosperity and capacity of a later sovereign of Malwa, Devi Ahalyābai of sacred memory, who similarly built temples and ghats in sacred places throughout India. Ahalyābai built these holy structures from the immense legacy left her by Malharrao

v3.c34.s1.47

∗ याते श्रीभोजभूपे त्रिबुधवरवधूनेत्रसीमातिथित्वं । श्रीकर्णे कीर्तिशेषं गतवति च नृपे क्ष्मात्यये जायमाने ॥ भतारं यं धरित्री त्रिविवविभुनिभं प्रीतियोगादुपैता । त्राता विश्वासपूर्वं समभवदिह स क्ष्मापतिश्चन्द्रदेवः ॥

v3.c34.s1.48

∗ तस्यासीत्तनयो नयेकरसिकः कान्तद्विषन्मण्डलो । विश्वस्तोधतधीरयोधतिमिरः श्रीचन्द्रदेवो नृपः ॥ येनोदारतरप्रतापशमिताशेषप्रजोपद्रवं । श्रीमद्गाधिपुराधिराज्यमसमं दोर्विक्रमेणार्जितम् ॥

v3.c34.s1.49

केदार-रामेश्वर-सोमनाथ-सुंडीर-कालनल-रुद्रसत्कैः ।
सुराश्रयैः व्याप्य च यः समन्तात् यथार्थसंज्ञो जगतीं चकार ॥

v3.c34.s1.50

∗ (Udepur Praśasti Ep. Ind. I.)

v3.c34.s1.51

Holkar from his plunder in other kingdoms. Possibly Bhoja also did the same and expended the plunder obtained from Anhilwad and other kingdoms by his generals in this charitable work throughout India. Bhoja did not, like his contemporary Mahmud, amass wealth from plunder for the pleasure of mere possession or for aggrandizement but spent his treasures in constructing such holy temples as would make him known throughout India. Even in distant Kashmir which could not have acknowledged him as suzerain, he had a tank built at his expense to commemorate his name in that country. This was probably allowed by Kashmir entirely through respect for Bhoja's great fame and virtues.* But history does not record that Bhoja plundered many countries as Mahmud did and we may surmise that Bhoja's resources were mostly derived from his own country. Malwa seems to have been extremely prosperous during his reign and his government was so good that it brought him large revenues without being oppressive. In this affluence, therefore, we have the evidence of both the prosperity of his country and the orderliness and benignity of his administration.

v3.c34.s1.52

Bhoja was not only a great author but a great patron of learned men. Unlike again Mahmud, his contemporary, Bhoja was extremely generous to learned men and stories are related of his generosity to poets by story-tellers in which a lakh of rupees is said to have been the usual reward of poets who brought a single new and good śloka. This is exactly the reverse of Mahmud's reputation. Although we regard these tales as story-tellers' exaggerations, there is no doubt of Bhoja's extreme liberality to learned men and this has certainly been the greatest preserver of his glory and renown than his political successes or his great structures none of which is now remembered or left. We do not believe there was any Kālidāsa, new, or old, at his court and this name is a fiction of story-tellers or Padmagupta author of Navasāhasānkacharita and court-poet of his father also, was given the title of Kālidāsa. Dhanapāla another poet is properly associated with Bhoja and Uvata a native of Vadnagar wrote his commentary on the Vājasaneyi Samhitā at Ujjain during Bhoja's rule ( Luard & Lele p. 21 ). Many other learned men must have attended Bhoja's court but their names are not yet known.

v3.c34.s1.53

∗ Kalhaṇa gives the interesting story in the Rājatarangiṇī and states that Bhoja of Malwa had taken the vow of washing his face every morning with water of this Pāpasūdana Tīrtha in Kashmir and one Padmarāja, a favourite attendant of the Kashmir king of the time enabled Bhoja to observe this vow by constantly sending him glass vessels filled with water from the tank. Of this incident we shall have to speak again in our general survey chapter.

v3.c34.s1.54

Summing up one may bestow the highest praise one can on Bhoja and look upon him as one of the greatest monarchs of India. He is properly called Kavirāja and Mālavachakravartin by the inscription writers of the time even in other countries, being king emperor of Malwa (the meaning of the epithet chakravartin we will explain later on). The happiest way of expressing his greatness is by repeating what the Udepur Praśasti says of him "He accomplished, he ordered, he gave, and he knew in a way none else did." This pithily refers to his great undertakings in building throughout India, to his supreme political power, and to his extreme liberality to poets and learned men † and finally to his extensive studies and knowledge.

v3.c34.s1.55

† शासितं विहितं दत्तं ज्ञातं तदभ्य केनचित् । किमन्त्यकविराजस्य श्रीभोजस्य प्रशस्यते ( Ep. Ind. I p. 222 ).

v3.c34.s1.56

∗ क्षिप्रं मालवचक्रवर्तिनगरी धारेति को विस्मयः ( Ep. Ind. I p. 297 Vadnagar Praśasti of the Châlukyas of Gujarat ).

v3.c34.s1.57

PARAMĀRAS OF DHAR—LATER KINGS.

v3.c34.s1.58

We have devoted so much space to the reign of Bhoja as he was not only the greatest king of the Paramāras of Malwa but undoubtedly one of the greatest kings of Hindu India. The Paramāra line of Malwa having attained its pinnacle of glory under Bhoja naturally came on the incline of deterioration after him. His son Jayasinha had a troubled and probably a short reign. His inscription dated 1055 A. D. was issued from Dhār and he appears to have been reinstated on the ancestral throne by Vikramāditya by order of his father Āhavamalla Someśvara to whom he fled for refuge when Karṇa of Chedi had driven him out of Malwa, probably soon after Bhoja's death. He made a grant to the Brahmins of Amareśvara of Māndhātā on the Nerbudda, of a village in the Pūrṇaka (Punāsā) Pattaka. As his reign was short and troubled and as he was restored by the aid of others and probably driven away again, his name is not mentioned in the two great stone records of the Paramāras viz. Udepur and Nagpur Praśastis. The kingdom was rescued from this troubled condition by the valour of one Udayāditya* who is said to be a relation of Bhoja. What relation he bore to him is not stated and has not yet been ascertained. From Udayāditya's time the kingdom of Malwa appears to have started on a second period of successful career, though not as brilliant as that of Munja and Bhoja, for about two hundred years when it was finally subjected to the rule of the Mahomedans.

v3.c34.s1.59

* Col. Luard and Lele are, we think, mistaken when they state about this king that "In this deliverance of Dhār this king was assisted by Chālukya Vikramāditya VI of Kalyan from a verse in Bilhaṇa's poem (Vik. III 67)," Curiously enough this aid is referred to by them in another connection also at p. 15. It seems clear from the reference to Udayāditya in the Nagpur and en Udepur Praśastis that he delivered Malwa by his own prowess and not the aid of any foreign king. In fact the former document refers to the Karṇāṭa king not as a friend and supporter but as one of the troublers of Malwa. The translation of the verse

v3.c34.s1.60

तस्मिन्वास्यबन्धुतामुपगते राज्ये च कुल्याकुले ।
मग्नस्वामिनि तस्य बन्धुरुदयादित्योऽभवद् भूपतिः ॥
येनोद्धृत्य महार्णवोपमिलत्कर्णाटकप्रभ- ।
ल्वीपालकदारितां भुवमिमां श्रीमद्धराहायितम् ॥

v3.c34.s1.61

Udayāditya was a powerful king and had also the literary taste of his ancestors. He was also a great builder like his predecessor. The lofty Śiva temple at Udepur, a town founded by him and bearing his name, still attests the greatness of his glory and art. For the temple has the highest pinnacle in ancient India and the stones are placed one upon another without any mortar. They are held together by being correctly worked and fitted. There are many Paramāra inscriptions in this temple which seems to have become the hereditary repository of their fame, the earliest being two of Udayāditya himself. These show that its construction was begun in 1059 A. D. and finished in 1080 A. D. (Luard and Lele p. 29). This king appears to have had a long rule from about 1056 A. D. to about 1081 or later. He was succeeded by his son Lakshmaṇadeva who was a great warrior and scholar also. In the Nagpur Praśasti the greatest praise is bestowed upon him, occupying many verses. They contain a description of his Digvijaya, commencing from Gauḍa and including Cheḍi, Chola, Pāṇḍya, Ceylon and many other kingdoms and

v3.c34.s1.62

(we read here प्रभुत्त्वी and not प्रभुसुर्वी as read by Kielhorn in the lacuna after प्र of the original, as प्रभुसुर्वी gives no meaning and is also incorrect.) may run as follows :—

v3.c34.s1.63

"When he (Bhoja) became a brother of Indra (died) and the kingdom was troubled and its lord was submerged, his relative Udayāditya became king who acted like Varāha (boar-incarnation) in lifting up this earth, troubled as it was by kings such as Karṇa and Karṇāṭa mingling like great oceans." Here clearly the Karṇāṭa king is not referred to as a friend. This incident has not been understood from the beginning, Kielhorn starting the theory that it was Bhoja himself who was troubled in his last days by Karṇa. It clearly appears from the words "when Bhoja died" used here, as also from the wording in the Udepur Praśasti that the trouble arose after the death of Bhoja. The trouble probably arose by an invasion of Karṇa of Cheḍi son of Gāṅgeya who probably took advantage of Bhoja's death to retrieve the glory of Cheḍi sullied by Gāṅgeya's defeat. Jayasiṃha son of Bhoja a weak prince fled to Kalyāṇa to seek help from Someśvara and he forgetting his hereditary enmity and perhaps to oppose the growing power of Cheḍi lent him assistance and replaced him on the throne of Malwa. It is to this instalment of Jayasiṃha son of Bhoja that the verse in Vikramāṅkacharita III refers. Unfortunately the name of the Malwa king is not given in this verse स मालवेन्दुं शरणप्रविष्टमकण्टके स्थापयति स्वराज्ये ॥ Vik. III which mentions merely a Malwa king (Malavendu). But he could neither have been, Bhoja himself nor Udayāditya, Karṇa must have come again and driven the weak Jayasiṃha again and the unfortunate king is no more heard of (This is suggested by the word 'Magnasvāmini' of the Nagpur record). It was from this trouble of the two great armies of the north and the south which like oceans meeting in Malwa sub-merged the kingdom that Udayāditya by his valour alone rescued the country (See also Ep. Ind, XIX p. 108 महाकलहकल्पान्ते यस्योदाम भिराशुगैः । कति नोन्मूलितास्तङ्गन धूम्रतः कटकोल्बणाः ॥. Merutuṅga has commenced this mischief but the inscriptions of the time and Vikramāṅkacharita of Bilhaṇa when properly construed clearly prove his version to be untrue and imaginary.

v3.c34.s1.64

ending with the Turushkas on the Vankshu (Oxus) and the Kira king in the Himalayas (the usual pun on this word being made and the king of Kira being represented as a parrot confined in a cage and singing the praises of Lakshmaṇadeva). This is certainly a hyperbole of the inscription-writer who is none else than his successor and younger brother Naravarman. This king was a great poet and has plainly copied Kālidāsa from his reference to the river Oxus (Vankshu) mentioned by Kālidāsa also in the Digvijaya of the mythical Raghu. We merely give this exaggeration as an illustraion of such hyperboles even in inscriptions which are expected to give historical facts. Even inscriptions though contemporary and reliable records have, therefore, to be put into the crucible of credibility and examined carefully. Though there is nothing to show why the statements are false, they cannot be accepted unless we have corroborative evidence from records of other kingly families and, if possible, of foreign writers also.

v3.c34.s1.65

Lakshmaṇadeva died childless and he was succeeded by his younger poet-brother Naravarmadeva sometime before his composition of the Nagpur praśasti dated 1104 A. D. A fragment of an unpublished praśasti found in the Mahākāla temple at Ujjain was also his composition (Luard and Lele p. 29). In the Bhoja-Śālā at Dhār and in Umā and Mahākāla temples at Ujjain inscriptions have been found in serpentine form giving the Sanskrit noun and verb terminations of Pāṇini accompanied by verses containing the names of Udayāditya and Narvarman and making punning allusions to their valour and learning.* It appears that these were used in teaching in the schools at Dhar and Ujjain.

v3.c34.s1.66

Udayāditya’s youngest son Jagadeva was a most chivalrous young prince and stories of his exploits in Gujarat in the service of Chālukya kings and in other places including his own native land are told by Prabandhakāras which may or may not be true. But history cannot proceed without recording his name and his legendary career of adventure.

v3.c34.s1.67

∗ उदयादित्यनामंकवर्णनागकृपाणिका । .......... मणिश्रेणी सृष्टा सुकविबन्धुना ॥ ...... । कवीनां च नृपाणां च हृदयेषु निवेशिता ॥ (Luard and Lele p. 30)

v3.c34.s1.68

Narvarman like his father Udayāditya and like Bhoja himself was a devotee of Śiva but they were all tolerant of other religions, especially Jainism which was then spreading in Gujarat and Malwa and whose teachers were indeed powerful disputants. Disputations were often held before Narvarman between Jain Pandits and Hindu orthodox Pandits. One such disputation is described as held at Mahākāla temple itself between Jain muni Ratnasūri and a Śaivite teacher named Vidyāśivavādin. In such disputations it appears that the Jain pandits usually got the upperhand which led to their influencing the kings themselves before whom they were held. The Paramāra kings, however, remained devotees of Śiva throughout and Narvarman, though an admirer of Jain scholars and respectfully referred to by Jain writers, was never converted to Jainism (Luard and Lele p. 31).

v3.c34.s1.69

Narvarman reigned till 1133 A. D. and he was succeeded by his son Yaśovarmadeva who has left a grant dated V. S. 1190 made on the first anniversary Śrāddha of his father. Malwa and Gujarat were enemies since long and fights had been going on between them since the days of Narvarman but in the reign of Jayasinha Siddharāja the power of Gujarat increased and Yaśovarman was towards the end of his reign vanquished in battle by him and taken prisoner with his family. He is said to have been kept in a wooden cage in Anahilwād. This fact stated at length by many Prabandhakāras seems to be true as it is mentioned in an inscription of Jayasinha himself (Ind. Ant. X p. 159). He annexed Malwa to his dominion and sent a Jain minister to govern the country. He is usually also called Avantinātha in Chālukya inscriptions which proves that a large part of Malwa with Ujjain and Dhār was in possession of the Chālukyas for some time. At length Yaśovarman contrived to escape from his prison and with the aid of a Chauhān king of Ajmer regained a part of his dominions. And he succeeded in making his peace with Jayasinha. The latter died in 1142 A. D. and Yaśovarman also died soon after. Yaśovarman thus ruled from about 1133 to 1143 A. D. and in his time the power of Malwa finally declined. His mother was Māmalādevi a Chedi princess in memory of whom Yaśovarman made a grant in 1134 A. D.

v3.c34.s1.70

which has been found. It grants the village of Reghva a few miles east of Tikari in Dhar state (Luard and Lele p. 34).

v3.c34.s1.71

Yaśovarmadeva was succeeded by Jayavarman and in his reign Malwa was again conquered by Gujarat, when the famous Kumārapāla had established his power there after conquering his foes. A king Ballāladeva of Malwa is mentioned by Prabandhakāras as assisting these foes and Kumārapāla had his head cut off and suspended at the gate of his palace. The Vadnagar Praśasti of Kumārapāla mentions this fact but does not give the name Ballāladeva. Who this king was has not been ascertained, but he is believed not to be a Paramāra of Bhoja's family. Keilhorn suggests that during the time of Yaśovarman's captivity some portions of Malwa might have been taken possession of by adventurers. But we can give another explanation and it is this viz: that Ballāladeva must be another name of Jayavarman himself. For we do not think it possible that the kings of Gujarat or other countries would recognise an usurper who did not belong to the family of Bhoja as king of Malwa or would take credit for destroying an usurper, as they distinctly do.* It seems, therefore, probable that Jayavarman was himself captured in the battle with Kumārapāla. At this time of trouble and defeat Jayasinha's youngest brother Lakshmivarman set up his authority in the hilly parts of Eastern Malwa from Bhopal to Hoshangabad by his own prowess and called himself Mahākumāra. The epithet Samadhigata-pañcha-mahāśabda used by him no doubt shows that he did not pretend to be an independent king but that he was a Sāmanta of Malwa. Yet he had obtained his power not by gift but by the sword as expressly stated in inscriptions of this branch (Ind. Ant. XIX). For this reason we do not think that the words, interregnum and dual rule, used by Col. Luard and Mr. Lele in their account of this period properly apply to the situation of Malwa at this time. In Jayavarman's time much of Malwa went into the possession of Gujarat and after his death or his ceasing to rule a portion of the dominion of Malwa was appropriated by Lakshmivarman. When Jayavarman ceased to rule and how is not clear. Kielhorn surmises that he was deposed by his younger brother Ajayavarman. But as suggested above, it is probable that he was taken prisoner in his conflict with Kumārapāla and eventually beheaded by Yaśodhavala of Chandrāvatī. In view of the sadness of his death the expression "Rājye vyatīte" is probably knowingly used by inscription writers. It is at least certain that the cessation of his rule was strange. He appears to have ceased to rule sometime before 1063 A. D., the date of Lakshmivarman's grant (Ind. Ant. XVIII p. 254 and XIX) and probably soon after 1043 A. D.

v3.c34.s1.72

∗ The wording in the Vadnagar Praśasti is द्वारालंबितमालवेशशिरः। and in Abu record यश्रौलुक्यकुमारपाल नृपतिप्रत्यर्थितामागतं गत्वा सत्वरमेव मालवपतिं बल्लालमालव्यवान् (Ep. Ind. VIII p. 211).

v3.c34.s1.73

It seems also probable that Yaśovarman had three sons Jayavarman, Ajayavarman and Lakshmivarman. When Jayavarman ceased to rule, Ajayavarman normally became the ruler of Malwa and his titles are the usual P. B., Mahārājādhirāja Parmeśvara and Lakshmivarman who set up for himself a principality by his own valour about Bhopal and Hoshangabad took the titles of a Sāmanta as stated above. These two lines continued for about three generations and they eventually united under Devapāladeva as we shall presently see. We do not think, however, that this was a dual rule as the latter family, though nominally, acknowledged the supremacy of the family of Ajayavarman by contenting itself with the titles of a Sāmanta.

v3.c34.s1.74

Ajayavarman, the lineal representative of the kings of Malwa and ruling in the country round Dhār, the capital of Malwa since the time of Bhoja, is known only from the records left by his successors. We know nothing about him, but we may be certain that these records establish his identity as a different king from Jayavarman which is sometimes doubted. In Sanskrit especially where sandhis declare correctly the words employed, while in Lakshmivarman's documents we distinctly read the name Jayavarman, in Vindhyavarman's record we distinctly read the name Ajayavarman. Why the former does not mention Ajayavarman is to be explained by the fact that Lakshmivarman seems to have set up his principality in the days of Jayavarman and perhaps by his acquiescence. Ajayavarman continued the main line for some time and he was followed by his son Vindhyavarman who seems to have recovered much of the ancestral territory. From an inscription in the famous Udepur Śiva temple we know that part of the country was in the possession of Kumārapāla of Gujarat on 12th December 1163 on which day on the occasion of a lunar eclipse he made a grant (Ind. Ant. XVIII p. 343). His representative or viceroy was Mahā Rājaputra Śrī Vasantapāla. There is another grant recorded by Chāhada, probably his successor in office, in 1166 A. D. and a third grant still by Ajayapāladeva of Gujarat in 1173 A. D. of a village in Bhaillaswami (Bhelsa) district. Vindhyavarman appears to have regained possession after Ajayapāla of Gujarat whose reign ended in 1176, as Ajayapāla's inscription at Udepur dated 1173 (Ind. Ant. XVIII) shows that he still had power in Eastern Malwa. Ajayapāla's successor was a minor and in his reign Malwa probably fully reverted to the Paramāras. Vindhyavarman is described as a great warrior in a grant of Arjunavarman, his grandson, dated 1215. He certainly had possession of Mandugadh the fortress of Dhar (Mandapadurga), where an unpublished inscription shows that he had a minister named Bilhaṇa (Luard and Lele p. 37) who was a poet.* This shows that this king was a patron of poets. This hereditary tendency of this king is also referred to by the Jain writer Āśādhara of whom we shall presently give further particulars. Vindhyavarman ruled from about 1160 to about 1180 (Luard and Lele p. 58) and he was succeeded by his son Subhatavarman. He also was a powerful king and further restored the power of Malwa. He seems to have not only recovered his possessions but even led an expedition against Gujarat.† A Yādava king of Devagiri is said to have conquered Malwa but probably this was an unimportant victory. Subhatavarman's reign is given by Col. Luard and Mr. Lele as extending from 1180 to 1210 A. D. He was succeeded by Arjunavarmadeva whose grants issued from Mandapadurga (Mandu), Bhṛigukachchha (Broach) and Amareśvara (Māndhātā) on the Nerbudda have been found, dated respectively 1211, 1213 and 1215 A. D. He is said to have defeated Jayasinha II king of Gujarat and a drama composed by a court-poet on this victory and in-

v3.c34.s1.75

† See Ep. Ind. IX p. 108 गर्ज्जद्गुर्जरपट्टण &c.

v3.c34.s1.76

* विन्ध्यवर्मनृपतेः प्रसादभूः । सान्धिविग्राहिकबिल्हणः कविः ॥

v3.c34.s1.77

scribed on slabs has been found at Dhār by Mr. Lele, used in the Kamāla Maula mosque. The drama has been deciphered and edited in Ep. Ind. VIII. It was composed by Madana a Gauda Brahmin who was a pupil of Āśādhara the Jain pandit and was guru of the king. The drama was acted in the Sarasvati-bhuvana on the occasion of a spring festival. This drama describes Arjunavarman as an incarnation of Bhoja himself which praise appears to be well-deserved as Arjunadeva was not only a patron of poets but was himself a poet and an author.* Raṣikasañjivanī, a commentary on the Amaruśataka is one of his known works. He is said to have also written commentaries on the works of Bhoja. He thus seems to have been brave, learned and liberal like his ancestor Bhoja and like him he seems to have been fortunate also; for the glory of Malwa departed after his death, which must have occurred about 1216 A. D. as his successor's record dated 1218 A. D. has been found.

First 81 of 123 passages. Read on

Linked texts (21)

Rājataraṅgiṇī — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit
Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Donative record at the Udayeśvara temple, Udayapur, Madhya Pradesh, dated V.S. 1222 — Sanskrit
Epigraphia Indica
Pṛthvīrāj Rāso — Cand Bardāī, Hindi
Raghuvaṃśa — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit
Vājasaneyisaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Indian Antiquary
Khajuraho
Mahoba
Vikramāṅkadevacarita — Bilhaṇa, Sanskrit
Prabodhacandrodaya — Kṛṣṇamiśra, Sanskrit
Vadnagar Prasasti of the reign of Kumarapala — Sanskrit
Māndhātā plates of Dēvapāla; [Vikrama-]Saṁvat 1282 (ed. Kielhorn 1908) — Sanskrit
Mount Abu inscription of Tejāḥpāla (No. I) — Sanskrit
Dubkund stone inscription of the Kachchhapaghāta Vikramasiṁha. The [Vikrama] year 1145 — Sanskrit
Basahi plate of Govindachandra. Samvat 1161 — Sanskrit
Plate of Devavarmadeva. [Vikrama]-Saṁvat 1107 — Sanskrit
Mahābalipuram Inscription of Rājasiṁha-Narasiṁhavarman II — Sanskrit
A Chandella inscription from Mahoba — Sanskrit
Dohad inscription of the Chaulukya king Jayasiṁha-deva — Sanskrit

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s1: Guhilot Genealogy

Contents

Guhilot Genealogy

Linked texts (21)