History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s4: Genealogy of the Chālukyas of Anhilwad.
History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s4
- Language
- English
Genealogy of the Chālukyas of Anhilwad.
v3.c34.s4.1
( Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I part II and Kielhorn's genealogies E. I. VIII )
v3.c34.s4.2
I Mūlarāja son of Rāji (c 961-996 A. D.).
v3.c34.s4.3
II Chāmunda ( c. 997-1009 ).
v3.c34.s4.4
| . . . . .
| | |
v3.c34.s4.5
III Vallabha (c. 1009) IV Durlabha (c. 1009-1021) Nāgarāja.
v3.c34.s4.6
V Bhīma I (c. 1021-1063)
v3.c34.s4.7
| Insc. 1029
| |
| Khemarāja
| |
v3.c34.s4.8
VI Karṇa (c. 1063-1093) Insc 1091 Haripāla
v3.c34.s4.9
VII Jayasinha Siddharāja (c. 1093-1143) Tribhuvanapāla Insc. 1131-1139
v3.c34.s4.10
Mahipāla VIII Kumārapila (c. 1143-1173)
v3.c34.s4.11
| Insc. 1145-57-53-63-69
v3.c34.s4.12
IX Ajayapāla (c. 1163-1176) Insc. 1173-1175
v3.c34.s4.13
X Mularāya II XI Bhima II (c. 1176-1241) (c. 1176-1178) Ins. c. 1199, 1207 09-16-18-26-30-31-38
v3.c34.s4.14
XII Tribhuvanapāla Insc. 1242
v3.c34.s4.15
THE GĀHADAVĀLAS OF KANAUJ.
v3.c34.s4.16
Of the new Rajput clans which came to the front in the third sub-period of Hindu history (1000-1200), the most noted as well as the most powerful was the Gāhadavāla family of Kanauj. The Gāhadavālas are considered to be a branch of the Rathods or Rāshtrakūtas but this fact is often disputed and we will examine this subject later on; it is also uncertain whence the Gāhadavālas came and we will give our view on this point also later. From inscriptions of this family found in scores, however, it appears certain that Chandradeva son of Mahīyala Gāhadavāla, ‘by the prowess of his arms obtained the sovereignty of Kānyakubja and freed the country from trouble’. This praise is bestowed on Chandra in almost every Gāhadavāla grant. In what year this exploit is to be placed is not quite clear. Fortunately we have, since Kielhorn gave genealogies of Northern Kings in 1908 (E. I. in VIII), found three inscriptions of Chandradeva himself and the eulogy of him in the two later records is more detailed; but unfortunately the epithets in them cannot be well understood. It seems that Chandra conquered Narapati, Gajapati, Triśankupati and a king of Pānchāla which must be identified with the kingdom of Kanauj (E. I. XIV p. 192). These inscriptions are dated from 1093 to 1099 A. D. and there is another inscription of him dated 1091 with the usual epithets (E. I. IX p. 302). It seems thus certain that Chandradeva conquered Kanauj before 1091 A. D. In an inscription of a later king (I. A. XIV p. 103) it is stated that Chandradeva freed the earth from trouble which had come upon it after the death of Karna of Chedi. This king we have taken to have ruled up to 1080 A. D. It hence follows that Chandradeva conquered Kanauj some time after 1080 A. D. In this inscription it is also stated that Chandradeva defeated many enemy kings and then made Kānyakubja his capital. Kanauj was the Rome or Constantinople of India from the days of Harsha and whoever took it was considered as the emperor of Hind. Chandra must, therefore, have found many opponents to his occupation of Kanauj as his capital, though he must have defeatad the last effete representative of the fallen Pratihāra line easily. The word 'chapala' or mobile applied to Pāñchāla king in these two Chandra records (E. I. XIV) probably shows that he had to pursue the fugitive Pratihāra last king from place to place.
v3.c34.s4.17
Having conquered the kingdom of Kanauj, Chandra freed the country from the Turks whose officers must have been present in the country in several places to collect the tribute paid to Ghazni by Kanauj as stated before, and as immortalized in the Gāhadavāla records by the word 'Turushkadanda'. Chandra further obtained possession of the chief sacred places in Northern India viz. Kāśī, Kuśika (Kanauj), Uttara Kośala (Ayodhya) and Indrasthāna (perhaps Indraprastha or Delhi) and as a Hindu king protected these sacred places from the incursions of the Turks (I. A. XIV); a praise bestowed upon Chandra in almost all Gāhadavāla records. He also made tulādānas or gifts of gold of his own weight by scores to learned Brahmins. In short Chandra was not only a powerful king but also a most orthodox Hindu and his conquest of Kanauj may be looked upon as a strong religious effort by the Hindus to free Āryāvarta from the troubles of Mlechchha inroads and Mlechchha domination. Bhoja had rendered the same service (1040) and Karṇa later (1060) but Chandra (1080) established firmly Hindu rule in Northern India by conquering and consolidating the kingdom of Kanauj and thus ensured the life of Hindu India for a century more.
v3.c34.s4.18
He was succeeded by his son Madanapāla who is also praised in his documents and in those of his successors but the praise is apparently conventional and we do not get any historical details from the praise. He was succeeded by his son Govindachandra who is undoubtedly the most famous and powerful king of this line, as usual the third from the founder. He is often described as 'strengthening the newly founded kingdom by his arms as with ropes and creepers'. His war elephants are described as moving in three directions without rest. Probably like Harsha, Govindachandra kept this arm at great strength and constantly used it east, south and west. (In the north was the Himalaya mountain, the safe boundary of his kingdom which perhaps did not require much attention). He first takes the new epithet ‘conqueror of the three kingdoms of Aśvapati, Narapati and Gajapati’. To what kings or kingdoms these terms refer it is difficult to state and has not been discussed. Probably the kingdom of Hayapati meant the kingdom of Kanauj, of Gajapati the kingdom of Bengal and of Narapati the kingdom of Chedi. The first two terms have already been used elsewhere and explained by us as above in Vol. II (p. 350) and Narapati may refer to the Chedi or Telingaṇa kingdom whose king is said to have kissed his feet i. e. entered into subordinate alliance with him. The Giripati mentioned in two Chandradeva’s inscriptions may refer to the Āndhra kingdom or the Chedi, as both are full of mountains and the former is actually so described in the verse noted in Vol. II (p. 350). In any case it may be taken that Govindachandra extended his domination in all directions and thereby reduced the extent of the territories of the kings of Bengal, Āndhra and Chedi. He held Benares undoubtedly and much of the territory to the east of it, as he has made many grants of villages in the country round Benares, from Benares itself, which appears to have usually been a second capital with the kings of Kanauj. Indeed Jayachandra and others are often described by Mahomedan writers as kings of Benares and hence supposed by some as coming originally from that city itself.
v3.c34.s4.19
In the same way as he had to fight with the Gauda kings in the east (and Chedi in the south), Govindachandra had necessarily to fight with the Mahomedans of Lahore in the west and we actually find these fights referred to, correctly and without boast, in an inscription of his which was recorded* while he was yet a Yuvarāja or heir apparent. The verse is very important and may be translated as follows:—(he was at the time on the Jumna at Āsaṭikā a place not identified but probably in the North-west and he makes the grant while Madanapāla was still ruling) “Terrible by breaking open the temples of the war-elephants of Gauda difficult to be opposed and compelling the Hammīra to cease hostilities by his game of unequal fighting, he accepted the kingship of the earth stamped, as it were, with seals in the form of the imprints of the hoofs of his horses constantly moving about”. This shows the nature of his fights with the Turks of the Panjab who had constant tussels with Govindachandra and who, it appears, had eventually to make truce with him. This verse also shows that, like Bhoja Pratihāra of Kanauj, Govindachandra also kept a very large force of efficient cavalry which was always on the alert and constantly moving about.
v3.c34.s4.20
∗ दुवारिस्फारगंडद्विरदवरघटाकुंभनिर्भेदभीमो । हम्मीरं न्यस्तवैरं मुहुरसमरक्रीडया यो विधत्ते ॥ शश्वत्संचारिविलगत्तरगखुरपुटोल्लेखमुद्रासनायक्षोणीस्वीकारदक्षः स इह विजयते प्रार्थना कल्पवृक्षः ॥
v3.c34.s4.21
Govindachandra was not only a powerful king but following the example set by Bhoja of Malwa and being himself a learned man, patronised learned men at his court. His epithet in most Gāhadavāla records is ‘Vividha-Vichāra-Vidyā-Vāchaspati’ a very Brihaspati (teacher of gods) in different sciences and philosophies. It is also stated that his Sāndhivigrahika (minister for war and peace), Lakshmīdhara by name, composed Vyavahāra-Kalpataru a treatise on law and procedure. Govindachandra thus can be placed in the same category of great kings as Samudragupta, Harsha, Bhoja, Mahmud, Akbar or Shivaji who were both great conquerors and patrons of learned men.
v3.c34.s4.22
Govindachandra ruled long from about 1114 to 1155 A. D. Sir Vincent Smith, it appears, inadvertently includes the years 1104 to 1114 in the reign of Govindachandra (E. H. I. p. 384, 3rd Edn.). And Gaurishankar Ojha has rightly given the date of Govindachandra’s accession as 1114 A. D. This discrepancy of dates was striking and we specially looked into the inscriptions concerned and it appears that these grants from 1104 to 1109 A. D., Govindachandra signs or makes as heir apparent while Madanapāla was still ruling and hence these years must be included in the reign of Madanapāla. Kielhorn has also given the inscriptions of 1104, 1105, 1107 and 1109 as belonging to the reign of Madanapāla. The first insc. of 1104 is published in I. A. XIV (p. 103) and is the well-known Basāhi grant of that village in the Etawah District. Govindachandra is described therein as Mahārājaputra, meaning literally son of the Mahārāja, and in the last sentence the writing is said to be done with the consent of Purohita Jāgūka, Mahattaka (minister) Vālhaṇa and Pratihāri (chamberlain) Gautama. The inscription of 1105 is published in Ep. Ind. II (p. 358) and is similar in form to the above on which we will comment at length later on. It grants a village in the Pāñchāla country while the donor was encamped on the Ganges and in the end the writing is said to be made with the consent of the above officers as also of the queen-mother Rālhadevi. The third insc. dated 1107 is published in short in J. R. A. S. 1895 (p. 786). It was made in Benares by queen Prithvīśrikā for Madanapāla. And the fourth insc. dated 1109 is published in I. A. XVIII (p. 15.). The grant was made on the Jumna at Asaṭikā mentioned above, on account of a solar eclipse, by Govindachandra Mahārāja-putra ‘ while Madanpāla was ruling ’ and it does not contain at the end mention of any consent by any state officers. We have detailed these facts purposely as some points of importance appear clearly therefrom. Madanpāla, it must first be stated, did not come to the throne in 1097 as is sometimes supposed, for we have now an inscription of Chandra himself dated 1099. The insc. of St. 1154 or 1097 A. D. is given even by Kielhorn as belonging to Chandra. That insc. (I. A. XVIII p. 11) was recorded by Madanpāla to certify a grant made by Chandra in 1097 (St. 1154); when this certification or the inscription itself was recorded is not mentioned but it must have taken place after 1099 A. D., when Chandra was still ruling. We may take, therefore, the date of the rule of Chandra as circa 1080 to 1100; in which year Madanpāla may be taken to commence his rule. Strangely enough, the above noted four grants in the year 1104, 1105, 1107 and 1109 are made during his rule by his son Govindachandra and one by his mother queen Rālhadevi and one grant is consented to by his own queen Prithvīśrikā when the grantor was in Pāñchāla country. It may be inferred that Madanpāla by reason of illness or for some other cause did not rule personally during these years and authorised his son and queen to make grants and do other acts which are solely the function of royalty. It further appears that Rajput queens were often invested with power to act for the king as regents. In the last grant of 1109, Govindachandra was so far advanced in age and also in power that his act did not require the consent of the queen mother. Govindachandra's first grant in his own behalf found is dated 1114 (Kielhorn and Gaurīshankar) and we may take it that he came to the throne in 1110 A. D.
v3.c34.s4.23
Govindachandra coming to the throne when young naturally ruled long. About 21 copper plates were found in one place near Benares out of which 14 belong to Govindachandra dating from 1114 to 1154 A. D. and are published by Kielhorn in E. I. IV. In all about forty grants of Govindachandra have been found; but the latest date yet found is the one above given, viz: 1154 A. D. Though Vijayachandra the next king is mentioned first in a grant of his dated 1161, we must take Govindachandra to have ruled from 1110 to 1155 and not later for reasons which will presently appear. Govindachandra had two queens named Nayanakelidevi and Gosalādevi and from the former he had a son Rājyapāla who as Yuvarāja made a grant dated 1142 A. D. He, however, seems to have died before his father.
v3.c34.s4.24
Vijayachandra who succeeded Govindachandra was also a powerful and able monarch. He is described as having made a Digvijaya in inscriptions of his son. His name appears as Bijepal in the Prithvirāj Rāsā and he is therein also said to have conquered the world. His fight with Hammīra is described in his grant dated 1168 A. D. as more effective than that of his father; for it is said that he quenched the burning heat of the people’s grief by the tear-flow drawn from the eyes of the women of Hammīra who had wantonly harrowed the world*, a strange method usual with Sanskrit poets of describing a victory over the enemy. At this time Khushru the Hamir was settled in Lahore (1152), abandoning Ghazni for fear of the Ghori and the Ghazni kingly line, in its decline, was nearing extinction. His defeat, therefore, need not excite surprise. Vijayachandra’s son Jayachandra was already in 1168 A. D. a grown up man and Yuvarāja as appears from this very record (I. A. XV p. 7). The date of the coronation of Jayachandra is actually given in an inscription of his as 31st of June 1170; and we may, therefore, take Jayachandra as ruling from 1155 to 1170 A. D.
v3.c34.s4.25
Jaychandra was also a powerful monarch; but it seems that the Chāhamānas of Ajmer had wrested the vaunted overlordship of India from the Gāhadavālas of Kanauj, even in the days of Vijayachandra, as we find that Vigrahapāla of Ajmer had already conquered Delhi and recorded an inscription there dated 1163, boasting that he had conquered the land between the Himalayas and Vindhyas and cleared Āryāvarta of Mlechchhas. The Digvijaya of Vijayachandra must, therefore, be placed long before 1162 and hence his reign must be taken to have commenced in 1155 A. D. and his extensive victories placed between 1155 and 1160 A. D.
v3.c34.s4.26
∗ भुवनवलनेहलाहम्म्रीरनारीनयनजलधाराधौतभूतौतापः ॥
v3.c34.s4.27
The epic poem Naishadha, one of the five great epic poems in Sanskrit, is the work of Śrīharsha who was a poet at the court of Jaichand, who was also a great king and, as related in a subsequent chapter, died an honourable death, drowning himself in the Ganges when wounded in fighting with the Mahomedans. The valiant Rathods of Jodhpur claim descent from the Gāhadavāla family of Kanauj, as the Guhilots of Mewad claim descent from the Maitrakas of Valabhi and the Bhonsles of Satara claim descent from the Guhilots of Mewad. Whether this claim of the Rathods is well founded or not, we proceed to examine in the following separate note.
v3.c34.s4.28
GENEALOGY OF THE GĀHADVĀLAS.
v3.c34.s4.29
Yaśovigraha
v3.c34.s4.30
Mahiyala (Mahichandra)
v3.c34.s4.31
I Chandra (c. 1080-1100 A. D.) Insc. 1091, 93, 97, 99.
v3.c34.s4.32
II Madanapāla (c. 1100-1114)
v3.c34.s4.33
III Govindchandra (c. 1114 to 1155) 40 Inscriptions found.
v3.c34.s4.34
IV Vijayachandra (c. 1155-1170) Insc. 1168
v3.c34.s4.35
V Jayachandra* (Jaichand) (1170-1193 A. D.) Insc. 1175, 76 &c.
v3.c34.s4.36
∗ This name is usually spelt as Jayachchandra in inscriptions apparently a miswriting of engravers of inscriptions.