History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s1.41

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.