Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s3: Note—Tewar or Tripura, Capital of the Kalachūris.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s3

Language
English

Note—Tewar or Tripura, Capital of the Kalachūris.

v3.c34.s3.1

(Jubbulpore Gazetteer 1908).

v3.c34.s3.2

Tripur, capital of the Kalachūris, was a well-known town in ancient India, but is now in ruins and it is represented by the modern village of Tewar about 10 miles from Jubbulpore near the marble rocks. Inscriptions from the 3rd century A. D. are found in and near Tewar. The town Karṇāvati founded by Karṇa near Tripura is also now in ruins and is the modern village called Karṇabel composed of Karṇa and bel, the latter being the name of the Bilva tree which abounds here. (Perhaps the Brahmins settled by Karṇa in this town were all Śaivas and planted many Bel trees the leaves of which are required for the worship of Śiva). Very little remains even of the ruins except beautifully carved images; for bricks and stones have all been removed and used in the construction of ghats and temples and railway bridges and even culverts in modern time. An ancient step-well has been discovered, however, under brush-wood and it now supplies drinking water to the villagers and there is also an old extensive tank near the ruins.

v3.c34.s3.3

CHAULUKYAS OF ANHILWAD.

v3.c34.s3.4

The history of the Chaulukya (Solankhi) kings of Gujarat has been well told and in detail in Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I part II, from Jain records as also inscriptions found till then. The chief authorities are of course the former viz. Hemachandra's Dvyāśraya and the Vichāraśreṇi of Merutunga (which gives specific dates for the reigns of kings). But these and other Prabandhas contain fanciful accounts, often fictitious, intended to impress the marvellous (Adbhutarasa) and sober history has to reject many of their tales which further are not important from the point of view of the general history of Hindu India. We will, therefore, confine our attention to important and well-authenticated events and also incorporate information derivable from epigraphic records discovered since the date of the Gazetteer.

v3.c34.s3.5

The first thing which requires to be pointed out is that this Chaulukya family and the Chaulukya family of the Deccan are not one and the same family, though the name is the same and though they are treated as the same by even ancient poets and story-tellers. As stated in Vol. II we attach great value to the recorded gotras of these several Rajput families and though names may be the same as among Brahmins, so even among Kshatriyas whose gotras are their family gotras and not the gotras of their Purohitas as propounded in later times by Vijñāneśvara and others, a difference of gotra indicates a difference of family. The Chaulukyas of the Deccan gave their gotra as Mānavya even in records as early as the sixth century A. D. and the later Chaulukyas Tailapa and others were of this family though they do not usually give their gotra in their records. The Chaulukyas of Gujarat unfortunately do not also give their gotra in their records. Yet we may be certain that their gotra was Bhāradvāja as given in a Chedi record (Ep. Ind. I. 253) of the 10th century and the same gotra is given by Chand in the Prithvirāja Rāsa. Even now the Solankhis of Rewa and of Gujarat profess the same gotra and we may be sure that Bhāradvāja has been their gotra all along. The Chaulukyas of Gujarat are, therefore, a distinct family from the Chaulukyas of the Deccan of the 6th and 10th centuries, though it must be admitted, like the Gazetteer the opposite opinion is entertained by Pandit Guarishankar Ojha.

v3.c34.s3.6

Secondly, the reader must note that the part of the country where the Chaulukyas founded their rule was not called Gujarat yet. Anahilwād Pātan was situate in what was then called Sārasvata Mandala, and we, therefore, still continue in the title of this chapter the mention of Anahilwād and do not use the name Gujarat though it is used by the Gazetteer. A record of Mūlarāja himself, the founder of the dynasty states that he acquired (I. A. VI. p. 1) Sārasvata Mandala and it was only towards the middle of the twelfth century that Chaulukya records begin to speak of this land as Gurjarabhūmi (See Ind. Ant. VI No. 4 dated 1280 St. or 1223 A. D). This is a view which Mr. Divatia also maintains. Gujarat was the name of the territory about Jaipur still in 1030 A. D., when Al-Beruni wrote his India. Why the name Gurjarabhūmi descended from that region southwards and began to be applied first to northern Gujarat and later on southern Gujarat which was called Lāta has yet to be explained. But it is certain that the name was not given to this country because the rulers of it the Chaulukyas were Gurjaras or Gujars. We still adhere to the view expressed in Vol. II (page 32); for we find that the Chaulukyas or Solankhis do not call themselves Gurjaras in any of their records. They are called Gurjara kings no doubt in the records of other kingdoms and they call themselves kings of the Gurjarabhūmi or land from the middle of the 12th century onwards, but they do not style themselves as Gurjaras by caste or race in any of their records and hence we may be certain that this country came to be called Gujarat for other reasons.

v3.c34.s3.7

The third thing which requires to be pointed out is that these kings were Śaivites or devotees of Śiva and were never converted to Jainism as is often supposed. They were no doubt tolerant kings as Hindus generally are. They even went beyond tolerance and admired and venerated Jain Sadhus and learned men, yet they, like other Kshatriyas of the Hindu period, remained Hindus and were devotees of Śiva. They never call themselves Jains in their records and these never begin with the praise of Jina but always begin with the praise of Śiva. Even Kumārapāla who was a devoted disciple of Hemachandra, the great Jain pandit of this period, styles himself devotee of Śiva, is described as having obtained power by the favour of Śiva and builds temples to that god; in fact the deity of the family was Somnath whose famous shrine was situated in their country and was under their rule. Jain writers have no doubt tried to prove that Kumārapāla was a convert to Jainism. Indeed they represent even the Chāvadās as also Solankhis as Jains; but the inscriptions drawn up under the government of the Solankhis do not support their statements and we may believe that they continued to be Śaivites though they favoured Jainism which, no doubt, prospered under their rule as we shall show later on.

v3.c34.s3.8

Having noted these three important points of difference, we will give in substance the history of the Chaulukya kings of Anahilwad, chiefly from the Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I part II. Mūlarāja was the founder of this family and he was sister's son of the last Chāpotkaṭa king of Pātan. Probably there was misrule in the country and Mūlarāja acquired the kingdom by force as the inscriptions generally represent and restored order, though chroniclers give the story of his seizing the kingdom wrongfully by putting his uncle to death. He ruled from 961 to 996 A. D. justly and vigorously as founders of kingdoms usually do. He had wars with the neighbouring kings such as those of Cutch and Sind. He had seized a kingdom which was already large and had necessarily to make good his claim to it by his prowess. He is said to have defeated one Griharipu assisted by the Khengār king of Cutch and also by Arabs from Sind and obtained possession of Somnath. The word Griharipu probably shows that he was a rebel, being a subordinate of the previous Chāvadā kings. Mūlarāja had also to fight with kings of north and south, viz. Vigraharāja of Sambhar and Bārappa of Lāṭa. The latter probably was a general of king Tailapa of Karṇāṭa, as Karṇāṭa and Lāṭa even in Paramāra records are usually leagued together, Lāṭa being a dependency of Karṇāṭa ruled by a governor usually a scion of the reigning family. Bārappa is said to have been killed in battle and Mūlarāja fought battles separately with these invading forces and secured his dominions. Mūlarāja devoted himself in old age to a holy life. He built a Śiva temple at Pātan. He invited learned Brahmins from different parts of India and settled them at Sidhpur and elsewhere. Many Brahmins of Gujarat such as Audīchyas and Gaudas believe that they came to Gujarat in his reign.

v3.c34.s3.9

Mūlarāja was succeeded by his son Chāmunda who reigned from 997 to 1010 A. D., according to the chronicles. Sindhurāja of Malwa was killed in a battle with this king as is stated in the Vadnagar Praśasti of Kumārapāla and this event is placed by Pandit Gaurishankar in 1010 A. D. (See Vol. II. p. 122). It cannot be later than this year but may have happened earlier. For, as stated already, Bhoja of Malwa might have begun to rule before 1010 A. D. The story that Munja insulted Mūlarāja when he was going on a pilgrimage to Benares via Dhar and Chāmunda revenged the insult is probably a fiction.

v3.c34.s3.10

Chāmunda had three sons Vallabha, Durlabha and Nāgarāja and the eldest succeeded and reigned for a short time only and his name is consequently often omitted in inscriptions. His brother Durlabha succeeded him and ruled for twelve years from 1010 A. D. to 1022 A. D. Nothing particular is recorded of him by chroniclers or in inscriptions. He was succeeded by his nephew Bhīma I. son of Nāgarāja. Bhīma certainly was a powerful king and ruled long (43 years) from 1022 A. D. to 1064 A. D. He was contemporary with king Bhoja of Malwa and king Karna of the Chedis both of whom were also powerful and able. His wars with Malwa have already been described. It is said that Karna of Chedi had a golden palanquin presented to him by Bhoja who was defeated by him and Bhīma defeated both Bhoja and Karna and took from the latter the golden palanquin and presented the same to his tutelary god, Somnath of Prabhāsa Patan. Whether these stories are true or not, it is true that all the three kings were equally powerful and had consequently constant fights, relieved by periods of friendship and amity. We have already said that Bhīma did not invade Malwa along with Karṇa and avail himself of the opportunity of crushing Malwa after Bhoja's death. Malwa records distinctly show that Karṇa of Chedi alone invaded Malwa and the version of the Gujarat chronicles in this respect is not true.

v3.c34.s3.11

It was during this king's reign that Mahmud of Ghazni made his famous raid on Somnath. Whether such an event did take place or not we have discussed elsewhere. But an inscription at Somnath records that Bhīma built a stone-temple for Somnath in place of the wooden one which existed before. We have seen that the Udepur Praśasti states that Bhoja built the Somnath god's temple. No reference is given by the Gazetteer for the inscription and hence we have not been able to estimate its value. We may suppose that the work was the joint work of Bhoja and Bhīma. Indeed Bhoja could not have done the work without Bhīma's consent and collaboration.

v3.c34.s3.12

Bhīma was succeeded by his second son Karṇa, the eldest Mūlarāja having died in his father's life-time. He had a peaceful reign from 1064 to 1094. He built a large tank called Karṇasāgara and he also founded a city, named it Karṇāvatī and made it his second capital. This city is modern Ahmedabad. As usual with Hindu powerful kings, he built many temples to Śiva and Durgā. He had very few conflicts with neighbouring kings, but the Hammīra-Mahākāvya states that he died in a battle with Dussala of Sākambharī.

v3.c34.s3.13

Kielhorn in his genealogies (Ep. Ind. VIII) gives only one inscription each against Bhīma and Karṇa. The first dated 1029 A. D. does not give much information about Bhīma (I. A. VI p. 193) and the second dated 1091 A. D. also gives no information about Karṇa (Ep. Ind. I. p. 317). The Vadnagar Praśasti of Kumārapāla also does not furnish much information about either. Bhīma is said to have conquered Dhārā, the capital of the Mālava-Chakravartin (Bhoja) by means of his efficient cavalry versed in five modes of moving (Dhārā) or versed in the use of five-weapons (Dhārā); and of Karṇa it gives the usual praise. The inscription of Karṇa dated 1091 A. D., however, shows that the Gujarat chroniclers are not wrong when they assign him a reign from 1064 to 1094 or 1093 A. D.

v3.c34.s3.14

Karna was succeeded by his son Jayasinha born of a Karṇāṭa Kadamba princess married when he was old. Jayasinha was a minor when Karna died and the government was carried on by his mother with the aid of capable and devoted ministers. Jayasinha surnamed Siddharāja proved to be the most powerful king of Gujarat in the Chaulukya line. He was a great builder and every ancient structure in Gujarat is popularly attributed to him. He built the famous Rudramāl (Rudra-mahālaya) temple of Śiva at Siddhapura parts of which only remain; yet they attest the stupendous dimensions and the fine workmanship of the temple. He built the Sahasralinga lake at Pāṭan. His wars were also great. He had a long war with Malwa lasting for twelve years beginning with an invasion of Malwa in the reign of Naravarman and ending with the defeat and imprisonment of Yaśovarman as related before. He is said to have attacked Dhārā and from thence to have gone against Madanpāla Chandella and exa cted tribute from him though a Chandella Kalanjar record states that Jayasinha was defeated (J. B. A. S. 1848 p. 319). Certain it is that he conquered Malwa and a large part of the country remained under the rule of Gujarat for a long time. He is usually called in inscriptions Avantinātha. From an inscription it appears that he also conquered Cutch and annexed that kingdom ruling it through a governor. In inscriptions he is said to have conquered Barbaraka, a word which has given rise to various legends and various surmises. The legends declare that Barbaraka was the king of demons or devils. And Jayasinha Siddharāja is said to have acquired such power over devils and goblins that he could accomplish anything. Such tales being absurd, antiquarians have attempted to explain the word by supposing that Barbaraka meant some aboriginal or even Mlechha people. Bühler thought that they were Bhils now known as Bābaras settled in south Kathiawar (Gazetteer). It is also suggested that they may have been the Berbers of the Hindu Purāṇas to be identified with Vara or the Berbers of Africa. The last suggestion seems acceptable with this difference that Berbers are to be identified with Arabs (See Vol. II p. 354). It is quite possible that Jayasinha defeated a formidable Arab invasion from Sind.

v3.c34.s3.15

Jayasinha was, like Bhoja whose example was catching, a patron of learned men and many great pandits, Jain and Hindu, were patronised by him. The greatest of them was, of course, Hemachandra the Jain Pandit whose grammar of Sanskrit is called Sidhdha Hema because it was dedicated to this king and whose poem Dvyāśraya gives a history of the Chaulukyas and also contains illustrations of grammatical rules. The king was also fond of disputations being held between pandits in his presence and in one such dispute a Digambara Jain pandit is said to have been defeated by a noted Śvetāmbara Sūri from Cambay as the former propounded that women could not obtain salvation, nor clothed ascetics. This story may perhaps emanate from a Śvetāmbara source, Śvetāmbaras being predominant in Gujarat.

v3.c34.s3.16

Not only poets but warriors flocked to the court of Sidharāja for patronage and the most famous of them was Jagadeva Paramāra, youngest son of Udayāditya. Marvellous stories are told of him by chroniclers but his bravery need not be doubted.

v3.c34.s3.17

Jayasinha Sidhharāja has, therefore, been properly described by the Gazetteer as most powerful, most religious and most generous. At the intercession of his mother who was grieved to see the despair of devoit pilgrims unable to proceed to Somnath on account of the heavy tax on them, he remitted the tax altogether, though its income was about 1 Lakh of rupees. Even in the Vadnagar Praśasti it is declared that he paid off the debts of all debtors in his kingdom and thus deserved the title of Chakravartin and a Śakakartā or founder of an era. It is indeed a common belief in India that the founder of an era must pay off the debts of all debtors in his kingdom and it seems from the Vadnagar Praśasti that Jayasinha actually accomplished this great feat of generosity. That he founded an era cannot be doubted for inscriptions in Kathiawar and Gujarat have been found dated in that era. The last mention is probably in the Verawal inscription (Bhav. Ins. p. 214) which gives its date in four eras viz. Vikrama 1320, Valabhi 945, Sinha 151 and Hijri 642.* In short Jayasinha amply deserves the titles Siddhārāja and Chakravartin bestowed upon him even in inscriptions.

v3.c34.s3.18

∗ This shows that four eras were current in Gujarat indicating four prominent rules in succession. Mahomedan rule was just commencing at the time of that inscription though it mentions Arjundeva Vaghela as ruling in Gujarat.

v3.c34.s3.19

Kielborn in his genealogies mentions two inscriptions of Jayasinha dated 1138 and 1139 A. D.; the latter is not a Chaulukya inscription but one of their subordinate kings and in its first verse it simply states that king Jayasinha imprisoned the kings of Saurāṣṭra and Malwa. In the various inscriptions of his successors he is usually described as Avantīnātha, Tribhuvanaganda, Barbarakajiṣṇu and Siddha-Chakravartin (See I. A. VI. No. 6 &c.). Jayasinha ruled long from 1093 to 1143 as stated by chroniclers which is not improbable, as he came to the throne a minor and as the inscription noted above is dated 1139 A. D. proving a long reign. In spite of his supposed magical powers and Siddha-rasa or powerful medicines or of his highly meritorious works and actions, Jayasinha had no son and the succession went to Kumārapāla, son of Tribhuvanapāla who was a grandson of the third son of Bhīma I named Krishnarāja. The succession was naturally contested and foreign kings intervened in the quarrel. But Kumārapāla by his energies and the assistance of Jain ministers succeeded in defeating Arṇoraj of Ajmer and Ballāla of Malwa as stated in the inscriptions. And Kumārapāla like his predecessors ruled justly and wisely for a long time i. e. thirty years from 1143 to 1173 according to the chroniclers. It is indeed rare to find four capable vigorous and justice-loving kings reigning successively as Bhīma, Karṇa, Jayasinha Siddhārāja, and Kumārapāla undoubtedly did. Stories of Jayasinha and Kumārapāla of Naharwala are told even by Arab writers as early as 1225 A. D. and we have no hesitation in identifying Jayasinha of Jamiyat-ul-Hikayat of Ufi who even mentions his power over spirits, with Jayasinha Siddhārāja and Gurpāl with Kumārapāla whose just rule is attributed to the fact that this king, before he came to the throne, had travelled much and passed through adversity. Gujarat chroniclers also state that Kumārapāla, as a possible successor, came under the disfavour of Jayasinha and departing from Gujarat travelled in southern and eastern countries by the advice of Hemachandra who is said to have foretold his greatness. This explains his extreme reverence for that famous Jain pandit and also his regard for the Jain religion. His self-restraint and high moral character may be attrituted indeed to the influence of Jain philosophy. Further, Kumārapāla was also fifty years old when he came to the throne and therefore past the age when kings are often led to become addicted to vice and oppression.

v3.c34.s3.20

His first war was with Arṇorāja of Ajmer to whom his sister was married. Perhaps he moved against him, he being in favour of his brother. Absurd tales are told of this war but from inscriptions it seems clear that in this battle Kumārapāla exhibited personal bravery and drew blood from Arṇorāja's chest with an arrow.* His usual title in inscriptions is "the conqueror of the king of Śākambhari in battle by the strength of his own arms". Probably the king of Malwa named Ballāla in Vadnagar Praśasti was an ally of Arṇorāja and was killed in battle. He sent his general twice against Mallikārjuna king of Konkan and in the second battle Ambada his general climbed his elephant and cut off his head. A king of Chedi was proceeding against him when by accident the king was strangled by his own necklace being caught in a branch as he was riding an elephant. His inscriptions are found in the temple of Udepur in eastern Malwa showing that Gujarat still ruled a large part of Malwa. His inscriptions are also found at Balmer in Western Rajputana and at Chitod itself in Mewad. This is a little inexplicable as it is not possible that he conquered Chitod and the Guhilot king there. The inscription seems to mention that he went there to see the famous fort when returning from an expedition against Karṇa. The king of Chitod probably treated him as an honoured guest. Perhaps the legend that one of Kumārapāla's queens was a Guhilot princess may also explain his friendly reception at Chitod as also the recording of an inscription on the capital fort of the Guhilots. Kumārapāla had extensive dominion no doubt but the Jain chronicles exaggerate his power, probably because he was the most ardent admirer of their religion and represent him as ruling a territory the northern boundary of which was conterminous with the dominions of the Turks.

v3.c34.s3.21

∗ अर्णोरजनराधिराजहृदयक्षिमैकबाणव्रणात् च्योतल्लोहंततपर्णावमदयखण्डं भुजस्थायिनीम् । Vadnagar Praśasti Ep. Ind. I.

v3.c34.s3.22

Kumārapāla like his predecessor was a great builder and many Jain vihāras are said to have been built by him or his ministers. He is certainly described by Jain chroniclers as building the temple of Somnath and it is said that Hemachandra himself, when asked by the king what was the most meritorious thing for him to do, replied that he should rebuild the temple of Somnath and the king built the temple of stones. We have already seen that Bhoja is credited with building the temple of Somnath as also Bhīma. Jayasinha is distinctly recorded to have done the same. Probably the temple was so contiguous to the sea that sea-waves dashed against the base of the temple and former builders only put up wooden pillars into the basin of the sea. The building of a stone-temple by Kumārapāla cannot be doubted; for an inscription in the Bhadrakālī temple without the precincts of Somnath dated 1169 A. D. mentions this fact in detail. A Kānyakubja Brahmin ascetic from Benares moved about in India, making Sthānoddhāra and came to Somnath via Malwa. He requested Jayasinha to build the Somnath temple and the latter began the construction. The work was, however, finished by Kumārapāla. This inscription gives the credit of inducing the kings of Gujarat to build the temple to the Brahmin ascetic Bhāva Bṛihaspati, a saint of the Lakulīśa sect. But the Jain chroniclers take the credit to themselves and attribute Kumārapāla’s action to the advice of Hemachandra. We may give credit to both, for indeed Kumārapāla appears to have honoured both Hindu and Jain ascetics and learned men. On this inscription we have commented elsewhere.

v3.c34.s3.23

It remains to consider how far we may believe that Kumārapāla actually became a Jain towards the close of his career. When the temple of Somnath was being built, he is said to have made a vow, at Hemachandra’s suggestion, to abstain from flesh, wine, and woman. And for two years he observed the vow and when the temple was finished he went there and worshipped the god and even Hemachandra bowed to the idol. That vow is not a Jain vow only, being prescribed even by Manu.* But perhaps the king was equally divided between his devotion to his tutelary deity and his devotion to his preceptor Hemachandra. The Hindus are in this respect most tolerant and even now devout Hindus are known to be followers of Mahomedan fakirs. It is, therefore, not at all strange that Kumārapāla worshipped Jain ascetics or built Jain vihāras. Even Hemachandra like his tolerant disciple bowed to the Somnath idol, declaring that it may represent even Jina. It does not seem probable, however, that Kumārapāla at last gave up his tutelary deity and turned a Jain since in inscriptions of his time and those of his successors, he is always described as ‘prospering through the favour of Śiva’ (Umāpati) and is nowhere described as a Jain, as Harsha is desoribed in his inscriptions as a worshipper of Sugata (Parama Saugata) while his father is described as worshipper of Śiva (Parama Māheśvara).

v3.c34.s3.24

∗ न मांसभक्षणे दोषो न मद्ये न च मैथुने । प्रवृत्तिरेषा भूतानां निवृत्तिस्तु महाफला ॥ The abstention from the three M’s is described as leading to great fruit.

v3.c34.s3.25

There is, however, reason to believe that Kumārapāla was so far impressed latterly with the doctrine of Ahimsā specially preached by Jainism that he, like Harsha, used his political power to suppress slaughter of animals, though not wholly, yet on certain days at least. Jain chronicles relate that he prohibited killing of animals altogether and even gave strained water to his horses and elephants like Śīlāditya of Molapo (See Vo. I. p. 23). But even if we do not believe this, inscriptions record that slaughter was prohibited by subordinate kings on certain days. There are two inscriptions of this kind, at Ratanpur and Harsoda, both in Marwad (Bhav. Ins. p. 206) which were recorded in the time of Kumārapāla by subordinate kings prohibiting slaughter on Ashṭami, Ekadaśi, Chaturdaśi and Amāvāsyā days and prescribing a penalty of five drammas as fine. If subordinate princes prohibited slaughter, it must have been done with the consent of the suzerain, probably a similar order must have been promulgated by the suzerain himself though this does not necessarily follow. But even this Ratanpur inscription describes Kumārapāla as prospering through the favour of Pārvatipati (Śiva). And the Vadnagar Praśasti relates that Kumārapāla built the wall round Vadnagar the home of Nāgar Brahmins who are well-known worshippers of Śiva. The conclusion appears to be that while Kumārapāla still remained a staunch worshipper of Śiva as his forefathers had been, he admired Jainism so far and was so far under the influence of Hemachandra that he prohibited killing of animals on certain days sacred to the Jains. Such prohibitory orders were issued by Akbar also in response to Jain feeling, in certain towns, as sanads prove, during Pachosan fast days of the Jains.

v3.c34.s3.26

Kielhorn gives seven inscriptions against Kumārapāla (genealogies E. I. VIII) ranging from 1145 to 1160 A. D. and this supports the length of his reign (30 years) given by the chronicles from 1143 to 1173 A. D. Kumārapāla had no son and he was succeeded by his nephew Ajayapāla who had a short reign as he was of a violent temper and vigorously persecuted Jains and oppressed even Hindu ministers. He was slain by his own door-keeper in 1179 A. D. He is credited in inscriptions with having brought under tribute the king of Śākambharī which does not seem likely.

v3.c34.s3.27

He was followed by his son Mūlarāja who was then a minor and who is, therefore, often called Bāla Mūlaraja. His mother Naikidevi was the daughter of a Permāḍi Kadamba king in Karṇāṭaka and acted as regent. It was during the reign of this king that Muhammad Ghori invaded Gujarat and was defeated. This defeat was certainly creditable to the Hindus and it is but natural that many Chālukya inscriptions should describe Mūlarāja as "the conqueror of the difficult to be conquered king of Gurjan (Ghazni)."* The credit belongs to the king no doubt but in one inscription the credit is given to his mother. Rajput ladies are certainly famous throughout history for their contempt of death and for their high regard for their honour and religion. It is a matter of pride further that this queen was a Rajput lady from the Karṇāṭaka. She must have been present at the battle and led the forces of Gujarat against the Ghazni king.† The battle is not described anywhere but seems to have been won by the valour of the Gujarat army composed, as it was, of cavalry and elephants, the latter being properly handled by Gujarat generals. It is said by Gujarat chroniclers that rain came to the help of the conquerors; but why rain should have helped them only is not obvious. It must also be conceded that Ghori must have had an insufficient force in comparison with the large army of Gujarat, as he is said to have come via Multan and across the desert. Whatever the reason of it, this defeat saved Gujarat from Mahomedan conquest for a hundred years more and established the reputation of the kingdom of Naharwala for valour. The battle was fought in 1178 A. D. and at Gadarar Ghatta (B. Gazetteer p. 195). Mahomedan writers do not generally mention this battle, but they mention one with the successor of Mūlarāja named Bhīma which is probably a mistake (Gaurishankar's Tod). Perhaps it may have been another attempt to retrieve his honour by Muhammed Ghori who tried to imitate Mahmud of Ghazni with less success in the beginning yet more complete success in the end.

v3.c34.s3.28

∗ म्लेच्छतमोनिचयच्छन्नप्रयौतनबालार्कआहवपराभूतगुर्जरनाधिराज (I. A. VI p. 194)

v3.c34.s3.29

† चौलुक्यराजान्वयपूजितस्य । यस्थानुभावाद्बलापि संख्ये । हम्मीरराजं तरसा जिगाय etc. Verawal Inscription (Bhav. Inscrip. p. 24).

v3.c34.s3.30

Mūlarāja also ruled for a short time only and he was succeeded by his brother Bhīma who was also a minor then, his mother carrying on the regency. Bhīma II called Bholā ruled long, like Jayasinha, from 1178 to 1241 A. D. a period of 63 years which is not unbelievable, if we remember that he came to the throne when a boy. Like Jayasinha also he called himself Siddharāja or rather new (Abhinava) Siddharāja, though his attainments were not as great. There are many inscriptions of his time found dating from 1199 to 1238 A. D. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that he reigned till 1242 A. D. as stated by chroniclers. His power was, however, usurped by his nobles and feudatories, though they always acknowledged him as king of Anhilwad. Thus an inscription of one Jayantasinha, to be noticed further on, states that Bhīma ruled in Anhilwād. Subsequently the Vaghela chieftain Lavaṇaprasād and his son Viradhavala became powerful and Bhīma II is said even to have declared that Viradhavala was his successor. The Vaghela chieftains were a scion of the Chaulukya family itself and Arṇorāja the founder was a son of Kumārapāla's mother's sister. He assisted Kumārapāla in obtaining the throne and the latter gave him the village of Vyāghrapalli near Anhilwad, whence the family obtained the surname Vaghela. Lavaṇaprasāda, son of Arṇorāja was a great general under Bhīma II and eventually Viradhavala, his son, established himself at Anhilwad in place of Bhīma's effete successor Tribhuvanapāla, who seems to have ruled for about four years after Bhīma (Gaurishankar's Tod). A copper-plate of Tribhuvanapāla dated 1299 St. or 1242 A.D. has been found and it seems that this king did for a time rule. But Vīradhavala who was virtual master must have soon set him aside and founded the Vaghela kingly family at Anhilwad which lasted for four generations after him viz: Vīsaladeva, Arjunadeva, Sāraṅgadeva and Karṇa (1286-1304) in whose time Gujarat was finally conquered by the Mahomedans. The Vaghela kings were a powerful family and their two great Jain ministers Vastupāla and Tejapāla built the famous Jain temples at Abu and Girnar. The modern representative of the Vaghela family is the family ruling at Rewa; while the Chaulukya family of Mūlarāja is represented by the chiefs of Rūpanagar in Mewad and of Kot in Marwad (Gaurishankar's Tod). There are some Maratha families such as Dubals of Karhad in Satara district who represent themselves as descendants of the Chaulukyas of Gujarat, their gotra being Bhāradvāja.

v3.c34.s3.31

It remains to consider who Jayantasinha was whose inscription dated 1260 St. or 1202 A. D. has been found (I. A. VI No. 4 p. 197). In this inscription he is described as a Chaulukya, but what relation he bore to Bhīma is not stated; it, however, makes it clear that this king ruled in place of Bhīma while he was away, (tadnantaram sthāne). It further praises Jayantasinha as the extricator, like Varāha, of the Gurjara land sunk in the waters of the ocean of evil times and the nourisher, like rain, of the seed of Gurjara land burnt in the forest fire of calamities. He also takes to himself all the epithets taken by Gujarat kings and describes himself as established in Anhilwad. This contains, most probably, a reference to the invasion of Gujarat by Kutubuddin Aibak in 1197 A.D. (B. Gazetteer p. 195-7). It seems probable that like his former namesake Bhīma I when invaded by Mahmud of Ghazni, Bhīma II at the time of the invasion by Kutubuddin forsook Anhilwad and retired to some distant fortress. Kutubuddin who had come to Ajmer advanced on Anhilwad and defeated the force which opposed him at the frontier under the mount of Abu, Dhārāvarsha Parmāra and other generals of Gujarat being defeated (Gaurishankar), Gujarat lay prostrate and was plundered. Perhaps this valiant Chaulukya prince Jayantasinha remained in the city and eventually cleared the country of any forces that may have been left in the country by Kutubuddin. The eloquent description of these services given in the inscription* are not a mere hyperbole and Jayantasinha appears he have ruled vigorously in Anhilwad for at least three years, his inscription being dated 1202 A. D. Bhīma's grant dated 1199 A. D. (Bhādrapada or September) was issued from Anhilwad (Ind. Aut. XI p. 71) and discovers the fact that he was still there though the Mahomedan forces were in the country troubling the people. He must have left the capital of sheer necessity hereafter. Bhīma must have returned when the country was clear and ruled again in Patan for a long time till 1242, his last inscription found being dated 1239 A. D. The titles which Bhīma II takes are indeed grandiloquent as he calls himself not only Abhinava Siddharāja but also Saptama Chakravartin. Why he calls himself the seventh Gujarat emperor of India cannot be explained unless we confine the enumeration to the Chaulukya kings of Anhilwad and begin it with Bhīma I. Unquestionably the kings of this line were almost all able and valorous kings with the exception of this last king who was indeed properly called Bholā or guileless as he did not sufficiently realise the absurdity of the praise bestowed upon him by inscription-writers. We give the genealogy of the Chaulukya kingly family of Anahilwad below with probable dates of accession and definite dates of their inscriptions. Jayantasinha may be omitted as he clearly ruled in place of Bhīma II during his absence (though Kielhorn gives his name in the genealogy of the Chaulukyas), following Gaurishankar Ojha in his note in Tod and the Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I. part I.

v3.c34.s3.32

∗ भीमदेवः तदनन्तरं स्थाने परमभट्टारक महाराजाधिराज परमेश्वर चौलुक्यकुलकल्पवल्ली-विस्तारणदीप दुःसमयजलधिजलमग्नमेदिनीमंडलोद्धरणमहावराह दुर्देवदावानलदग्धगुर्जरधरा-बीजप्ररोहैकपर्जन्य एकांगवीर (I. A. VI p. 197).

Linked texts (8)