[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921) › v3.c34 # History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34: Book VII. History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [v3.c34.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.5) — 4 parts - [v3.c34.s1 Guhilot Genealogy](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1) — 117 parts - [v3.c34.s2 Genealogy of the Chandellas of Mahoba.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s2) — 44 parts - [v3.c34.s3 Note—Tewar or Tripura, Capital of the Kalachūris.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s3) — 32 parts - [v3.c34.s4 Genealogy of the Chālukyas of Anhilwad.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s4) — 36 parts - [v3.c34.s5 Note 1—Rathods and Gaharwars.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s5) — 10 parts - [v3.c34.s6 Note 2—Do the Rathods or Gāhadavālas Belong to the Deccan?](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s6) — 79 parts - [v3.c34.s7 Note 1—Hanjamana Nagara.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s7) — 2 parts - [v3.c34.s8 Note 2—The Elephanta Caves of Ghārāpuri.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s8) — 33 parts - [v3.c34.s9 II. Kalachūris of Kalyan.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s9) — 6 parts ### Book VII. ### [v3.c34.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.1) THE CHĀHAMĀNAS OF SĀMBHAR AND AJMER. ### [v3.c34.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.2) One of the famous Rajput clans of the preceding sub-period which still flourished in this sub-period and indeed attained to greater glory was the Chāhamānas of Sāmbhar. We have given the history of their rise in our second volume chapter III Book IV (pp. 90-97) and shown that the first king who established a kingdom in Sāmbhar, otherwise called the Sapādalaksha territory (of 1¼ lakh villages), was Sāmanta and he became famous by his vigorous opposition to the invading Arabs from Sind about 750 or 778 A. D. His successors down to the last Prithvīrāja had constant fights with Mahomedans and maintained the struggle with great vigour and obstinacy. We have also given in Volume II the genealogy of the Chāhamānas of Sāmbhar from Gūvaka I, the next important king, to Durlabha whose Harsha stone inscription dated V. E. 1030 (A. D. 973) has been found. In this volume we will give the genealogy of the Chāhamānas from Durlabha onwards to Prithvīrāja their last king and emperor of India. The whole genealogy is given in the Bijolia inscription published by Kavirāja Shyāmaldas in J. R. A. S. Bengal I. V. and the same is examined by Kielhorn in Ep. Ind. Vol. VIII and also discussed by Rai Bahadur Gaurishankar Ojha in his Hindi edition of Tod's Rājastan (p. 394). The value of Prithvīrāja Rāsā as history is almost nil according to most scholars, as has been proved by many inscriptions found since Tod wrote his great history. The Chāhamāna genealogy, therefore, and also the dates given by Tod mainly from Pṛithvīrāja Rāsā are naturally incorrect and we have to rely for corrrect genealogy and dates on inscriptions and such dates as can be guessed for particular kings by calculation. The Rajputana Gazetteer Vol. III B (page 65) gives a genealogy of the Chāhamānas based on the Bijolia inscription but there appear to be a few inaccuracies therein which according to our view require to be corrected. We will here give the genealogy of the Chāhamānas of Sāmbhar from Durlabha onwards down to Pṛithvīrāja as we conceive it to be, with probable dates, side by side with the genealogy given in the Rajputana Gazetteer for comparison. ### [v3.c34.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.3) | Bijolia Insc. St. 1226 | Rajputana Gazetteer | | 1 Durlabha A. D. 973 | 1 Durlabha | | 2 Govinda (c. 988) | 2 Govinda | | 3 Vākpati (c. 1003) | 3 Vākpati | | 4 Vīyarāma | 4 Son Vijayarāma | | 5 Śrīchandra (c. 1033) | 5 Durlabha | | 6 Sinhata Dūsala (c. 1048) | 6 Vigraha | | 7 Visala alias Vigraharāja III (c. 1063) m. Rājadevī | 7 Pṛithvīrāja | | 8 Pṛithvīrāja I (c. 1078) m. Rāsalyadevī | 8 Ajaipāla | | 9 Ajayadeva (c. 1093) m. Saumalyadevī | 9 Aṛṇorāja son or grandson | | 10 Aṛṇorāja or Āṇā (c. 1108) | 10 Visala or Vigraha | | | 11 Pṛithvīrāja | | | 12 Someśvara | | | 13 Pṛithvīrāja | | Jagadeva | 11 Vigrahapāla IV alias Visala Ins. 1163 A. D. | 13 Someśvara Ins. 1169 A. D. | | 12 Pṛithvibhata II | | 14 Pṛithvīrāja III Ac. c. 1175 died 1193 A. D. in battle with Shibabuddin | ### [v3.c34.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.4) Of Pṛithvīrāja III or the last we will speak in a separate chapter; for his conflict with Shihabuddin Ghori must be treated in great detail as it ended in the final overthrow of Northern India and in effect of the whole of this country. His date of accession may be, as we shall show later on, taken to be about 1175 A. D. From Durlabha whose reign may be taken to begin in A. D. 973 down to Prithvīrāja III whose reign began in 1175 A. D. we have thirteen kings and a period of about 202 years giving an average of 15½ years per king. In the previous section of the genealogy, as the reader may remember, we took, for fixing dates, an average of 15 years. ### [v3.c34.5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.5.1) The first king Durlabha is said in the Harsha stone inscription to be a brother of the preceding king Vigraharāja who certainly was a great king. If we identify him with the Dhundā Dānava Visala of the Prithvīrāja Rāsā wherein the absurd legend is given of his becoming a demon and devastating Ajmer, we shall not be far wrong. But as said before, it is not possible to take the Rāsā for history, at least for the ancestors of Prithvīrāja III; and we have to abandon the task of identifying Rāsā kings with kings mentioned in inscriptions. For, further, we find that this demon is said to have lived for 300 years before Prithvīrāja and yet his son is said to be Sārangadeva a name not to be found in the inscription genealogies and his son was Arnorāja. But Arnorāja from inscriptions appears to be a great-grandson of the next Visāla or Vigraha III whose probable date of accession is 1063 A. D. and who thus preceded Prithvīrāja III by about a hundred years only. Giving up the Rāsā, therefore, we may note that Vākpati was the king of Sāmbhar from A. D. 1003 and hence a contemporary of Mahmud of Ghazni.\* But the Chāhamānas do not appear to have had any conflict with the Turks of Ghazni during Mahmud's time as Mahmud did not come to Ajmer. And Ajmer was not the capital of the Chāhamānas in 1000 A. D. ### [v3.c34.5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.5.2) When Firishta mentions Ajmer kings taking part in the confederacy of Rajput kings against Sabuktagin or Mahmud, he merely makes a surmise by ante-dating Ajmer owing to its fame in the days of Shihabuddin Ghori. Goving further on, we find that instead of Śrichandra of the Bijolia inscription, R. B. Gaurishankar gives the name Chāmuṇḍa and mentions that he built a Vishnu temple (as stated in Hammira-Kāvya) in a town in Marwar; while Kielhorn gives Simhata and Dūsala as separate kings (See Ep. In. VIII Appendix). Prithvīrāja I is said to have given a golden kalaśa (pinnacle-pot) usually covered with gold to a Jain temple in Ranathambhor. His son Ajayadeva is said to have built the fort of Ajmer and founded the modern town, towards the end of the 11th century A. D. and to have removed his capital from Sām-bhar to Ajmer. He must have been a powerful king as coins struck in his name and in the name of his queen Somalādevī have been found (Ind. Ant. 1912). His son Arṇorāja or Ānā was a more powerful king. He built the Ānā-sāgar tank and bund and "thus purified the place defiled as it had been by the invasion of Mahomedans". (This is perhaps a poetic fancy of the Prithvīrāja-Vijaya poem). His reign is assigned by Mr. Harbilas Sarda to 1125 to 1150 A. D.\* which does not much differ from the computed date given in our genealogy. Pandit Gaurishankar mentions that Kumārapāla of Gujarat invaded Ajmer in the time of Arṇorāja in St. 1207 or 1150 A. D. and Mr. ### [v3.c34.5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.5.3) Harbilas Sarda has in a paper in Ind. Ant. 1912 shown that Ānā twice warred with Kumārapāla of Gujarat, first in St. 1202 and again in St. 1207 when the latter invaded Ajmer to avenge an insult offered to his sister who was married to him. Arṇo's second son Visaladeva or Vigraharāja IV ascended the throne of Ajmer, setting aside his elder brother Jagadeva who had murdered Ānā and who probably did not at all rule. Visaladeva was a greater monarch than Ānā himself. He has recorded an inscription on the Iron pillar of Delhi in which his exploits are extolled to the highest. "From Vindhya to the Himalayas, he, moving for pilgrimage, conquered all those kings who opposed him and favoured those who bent their necks to him and he made Āryāvarta again a real Āryāvarta or abode of Aryas by slaughters inflicted on Mahomedans". And he exhorts his descendants in this way. "We have made the portion of the earth between the Vindhya and the Himalayas tributary to us. May your minds be not devoid of exertion for the conquest of the rest."† This indeed shows the vigorous character of his rule and his high ambition. We have already shown that after their conquest and annexation of the Punjab the Mahomedans had sent several expeditions into mid-India and made settlements in many places. Visaladeva drove these Mahomedans back into the Panjab and clearing Āryāvarta made it so in reality. ### [v3.c34.5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.5.4) This further would confirm the statement in the Bijolia inscription that he conquered Delhi, a fact on which doubt has been expressed. The verse "प्रतोल्यां च वलभ्यां च येन विश्रामितं यशः । ढिल्लिकाग्रहणश्रान्तमाशिकालाभलम्भितम् ॥" of the Bijolia inscription is difficult to understand. The words Pratoli and Valabhi are indeed double-meaning as also Dhillikā and Māsikā (which indicate probably towns of these names as also parts of a house). But it clearly indicates that he had to make great efforts to conquer Delhi. The Bijolia inscription as well as the inscription on the iron pillar at Dehli are given in an Appendix for the curious reader. ### [v3.c34.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.6) ∗ It is difficult to state on what authority Sir V. Simth states in his Oxford history of India that Visaldeo of Ajmer led the confederate army against Mahmud in 1008 A. D. ### [v3.c34.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.7) ∗ It is inexplicable how Mr. Sarda assigns for Ajayapāla's reign the period 1165-1175 A. D. (Ajmer P. 88). Probably these figures are given there by mistake or misprint. ### [v3.c34.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.8) † आविन्ध्यादाहिमाद्रेर्विराचितविजयस्तर्थयात्राप्रसङ्गात् । उद्ग्रीवेषु प्रहर्ता नृपतिषु विनमत्कन्धरेषु प्रसन्नः ॥ आर्यावर्ते यथार्थं पुनरपि कृतवान् म्लेच्छविच्छेदनाभि- । दैवः शाकम्भरीन्द्रो जगति विजयते वीसलः क्षोणिपालः ॥ ब्रूते सम्प्रति चाहमानतिलको शाकंभरी-भूपतिः । श्रीमद्विग्रहराज एष विजयी सन्तानजानामजान् ॥ अस्माभिःकरदं व्यधायि हिमवद्विन्ध्यान्तरालं भुवः । शेषस्वीकरणाय मास्तु भवतामुद्योगशून्यं मनः ॥ ( I. A. xix p. 218 ) ### [v3.c34.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.9) Visaladeva was not only a great warrior, conqueror of Vaikunta, Jābālipura Palli and even Delhi (Bijolia inscription) but he was a poet and a patron of poets like Bhoja of Dhar of immortal fame. Two slabs of stone inscribed with two Sanskrit dramas, one composed by Visaladeva himself and the other composed by his court-poet have recently been found at Ajmer. The Harakeli Nātaka is composed by Visaladeva himself and is based on the well-known Kirātārjunīya epic poem. The king represents himself as eventually having had darśana of Śiva like Arjuna. The drama is said to be composed in St. 1210 ( A. D. 1153 ). The second drama is entitled Lalita-Vigraharāja and is composed by the court-poet Somadeva. Vigraharāja is shown to have fallen in love with the daughter of king Vasantapāla ( probably an imaginary king ) who requited his love and he sends a messenger to her informing her of his resolve to come to her after his fight with the Amir. This seems to be historically true and the Turks under their Hammīra ( Amir ) are said to be innumerable. Each party has sent spies into the other's camp. Eventually formal messengers are sent and a truce or peace is concluded. ### [v3.c34.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.10) Visaladeva has left his name in Ajmer in the Visalasara tank, constructed by him, in imitation of his father Ānā who is named as Avelladeva in his iron pillar inscription and who built the Ānā-sāgara tank on the bank of which Shahjahan later built a marble Bārādari or open pavilion. Visaladeva also built a college for Sanskrit students which was converted by Shihabüddin Ghori into a mosque which is now known as Adhai-Dinki-Zhopadi ( a hut of two days and a half ). ### [v3.c34.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.11) Visaladeva's last record found ( Iron pillar of Delhi ) is dated St. 1220 ( A. D. 1163 ). He left a minor son named Aparagāṅgeya who is not mentioned in the Bijolia inscription. He must have been set aside by Visaladeva's nephew Pṛthvībhata or Pṛthvīrāja II, a son of the parricide Jagadeva. He ruled for a few years only and was succeeded by Someśvara, Visala's younger brother. He also ruled for a short time and was succeeded by his son Pṛthvīrāja III the last king of the Chāhamānas. The dates of the succession of Someśvara and of Pṛthvīrāja III we will discuss in our chapter on the latter. But it seems necessary to state here that Someśvara must actually have ruled for some time as the Bijolia Inscription records the grant of the village Rewaṇā by Someśvara and ends with this mention so that Someśvara was still ruling when the inscription was recorded in St. 1226, Phālguna Vadya 3 ( about March 1170 A. D. ). ### [v3.c34.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.12) The Chāhamānas are solar race Rajputs as shown in Volume II ( p. 14. ) and as even the Pṛthvīrāja-Vijaya and Hammīra Kāvyas declare. The idea that they are Agnikulas is a later fiction which has been exploded from stone records, as even Pandit Gaurishankar believes. But it is strange that he looks upon the Chāhamānas as lunar race Kshatriyas ( See his edition of Tod's Rājastan in Hindi ). This is probably a misprint. ### [v3.c34.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.13) THE GUHILOTS OF MEWAD ### [v3.c34.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.14) The kingdom founded by Bappā Rāwal remained intact in this sub-period and the Guhilot kings of Mewad were as valorous and independence-loving in this sub-period as in the preceding. They probably loved independence so truly that they never sought to extend their kingdom by depriving other peoples or clans of their territory and independence. For they never aspired to attain to the position of emperors of India (Samrāṭ or Chakravartin) as other kingly families did during this sub-period as in the preceding, such as Chāhamānas, Kalachūris and Gāhadavālas. In fact this aspiration was the bane of India from the most ancient days of the Pāndavas and Kauravas down to the days of Pṛithvīrāja viz. the desire to establish an empire in India without its advantages. For, this empire like the German empire, did not mean the welding together of the whole of Northern or Southern India into one kingdom; but it merely meant the humbling of other kingdoms without extinguishing them. The evil results of this idea of imperial sovereignty we will discuss in another place. It is sufficient to state here that the kings of Mewad never succumbed to the vanity of acquiring Imperial honour but held firmly to their own. This is perhaps the true reason why the kingdom of Mewad still subsists throughout the troubles and vicissitudes of twelve hundred years. The kings were content with their own territory and dignity and therefore they still rule in the territory where Bappā Rāwal first founded his kingdom. ### [v3.c34.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.15) During this sub-period (1000-1200 A. D.) the kings of Mewad were also generally free from aggression from without especially from the inroads of Mahomedans. Even Mahmud’s Turks did not come to Mewad probably for this very reason viz. that the kings of Mewad were not kings of Hind as the Mahomedans styled the Imperial rulers of Kabul or Kanauj. Perhaps the kingdom was not rich and there were no famous temples or shrines in Mewad where riches had accumulated. The kings of Mewad, therefore, remained unmolested and the vigorous line of its kings continued to rule without exhibiting any signs of decay ending in death. ### [v3.c34.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.16) In our second volume we gave the line of Mewad kings from Bappā to Śaktikumāra from the Ātpura inscription dated V. E. 1034 or A. D. 977. We will give in this volume the continuation of that line upto 1200 A. D. The mistake of the Pṛithvīrāja Rāsā in making Samarasinha a contemporary of Pṛithvīrāja III of Ajmer and Delhi has now been admitted on all hands; for Samarasinha's inscriptions plainly show him to belong to the end of the thirteenth century A. D. Unfortunately the Rāsā story has been accepted by bards in all Rajput states and has, therefore, vitiated their genealogies. We can in fact almost determine when this Rāsā vertion arose by comparing the various inscriptions relating to the Guhilots of Mewad themselves and the genealogies given therein. We have several such inscriptions (See Bhāvnagar Insc.). The first of them is the Abu Achaleśvara inscription dated St. 1342 ( 1285 A. D. ) and it gives a great many details. Then comes the Rāṇapurā ( Bāṇapurā ) inscription in Jodhpur territory dated 1496 (A. D. 1439 ) which tersely gives the whole genealogy from Bappā. Lastly comes the Rāyasāgara inscription dated St. 1732 (A. D. 1675) which first gives the Rāsā story that Samarasinha was married to Pṛithā sister of Pṛithvīrāja and died along with him in his last battle with Shihabuddin Ghori. The inscription distinctly refers to the Rāsā itself and has necessarily to distort the genealogy given in the preceding two inscriptions wherein Samarasinha is given as a son of Tejahsinha who was a son of Jaitrasimha in whose time the first conflict of Mewad with the Turks took place in about 1216 A. D. as distinctly mentioned in the Abu inscription, Jaitrasimha being described as a very Agastya to the ocean of the army of the Turks.\[\*\] Of this conflict we will speak later on; but this suffices to show that even Jaitrasimha, grand-father of Samarasinha, was not a contemporary of Pṛithvīrāja. We will, therefore, ignore the Pṛithvīrāja Rāsā account which obviously arose after the Rāṇapurā inscription dated 1439 A. D. and before the Rāyasāgara inscription dated 1675 A. D. and will give the genealogy of the Guhilots of Mewad in this sub-period from Abu and Bāṇapurā inscriptions and as accepted by Pandit Gaurishankar in his Hindi edition of Tod's Rajāstan. We have got a short inscription of Vijayasinha, one of these kings, dated St. 1164 ( A. D. 1107 ) and later, of Jaitrasinha dated St. 1270 ( A. D. 1213 ). Starting from Śaktikumāra, the last king mentioned in the Ātpurā inscription dated A. D. 977, we have, upto Vijayasinha, 10 kings and the average comes to (1107-977)/10 = 130/10 = 13 years and from Śaktikumāra to Jaitrasinha we have 19 kings giving an average of (1213-977)/19 = 236/19 = 12 8/19 years. This shows that the average for the Guhilot kings is still shorter than that for other families. We will use 13 and 12 years as average for this portion of the Guhilot genealogy and assign probable dates, with remarks for individual kings from Gaurishankar and other sources. ### [v3.c34.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.17) ∗ तुरुष्कसैन्यार्णवकुम्भयोनिः । ### Guhilot Genealogy ### [v3.c34.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.1) 1 Śaktikumāra (Ins. 977 A. D.) ### [v3.c34.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.2) 2 Ambāprasāda (c. 990 A. D.) ### [v3.c34.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.3) 3 Śuchivarman (c. 1003 A. D.) ### [v3.c34.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.4) 4 Naravarman (c. 1016 A. D.) ### [v3.c34.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.5) 5 Kirtivarman (c. 1029 A. D.) ### [v3.c34.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.6) 6 Yogarāja (c. 1042 A. D.) ### [v3.c34.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.7) 7 Vairaṭa (c. 1055) ### [v3.c34.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.8) 8 Hansapāla (c. 1068) ### [v3.c34.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.9) 9 Vairisiṅha (c. 1081 A. D.) ### [v3.c34.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.10) 10 Vijayasinha (c. 1094 A. D.) Insc. 1107 A. D. ### [v3.c34.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.11) \*11 Arisiṅha (c. 1118) ### [v3.c34.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.12) 12 Choṇḍa (c. 1129) ### [v3.c34.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.13) 13 Vijayasinha (c. 1140) ### [v3.c34.s1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.14) †14 Raṇasiṅha (c. 1151) ### [v3.c34.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.15) 15 Bhīmasiṅha (c. 1162) ### [v3.c34.s1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.16) 16 Sāmantasiṅha (c. 1173) ### [v3.c34.s1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.17) 17 Kumārasiṅha (c. 1184 A. D.) ### [v3.c34.s1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.18) 18 Mathanasiṅha (c. 1195) ### [v3.c34.s1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.19) 19 Padmasiṅha (c. 1206) ### [v3.c34.s1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.20) 20 Jaitrasiṅha (c. 1213) Insc. 1213 and 1222 D. A. ### [v3.c34.s1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.21) 21 Tejasiṅha (c. 1238) Insc. 1267 A. D. ### [v3.c34.s1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.22) ²² Samarasiṅha (c. 1267) Insc. 1278, 83, 87 A. D. ### [v3.c34.s1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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. ### [v3.c34.s1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.24) 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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.28) THE PARAMĀRAS OF DHAR—BHOJA. ### [v3.c34.s1.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.39) व्याप्ता धारेव धात्री रिपुतिमिरभरैर्मौलिलोकस्तदाभूत् ॥ ### [v3.c34.s1.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.43) ∗ तत्रादित्यप्रतापे गतवति सवनं स्वर्गिणां भर्गभक्ते । ### [v3.c34.s1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.44) ‡ तस्मिन्वासवबन्धुतामुपगते राज्ये च कुम्भाकुले ।। ### [v3.c34.s1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.48) ∗ तस्यासीत्तनयो नयेकरसिकः कान्तद्विषन्मण्डलो । विश्वस्तोधतधीरयोधतिमिरः श्रीचन्द्रदेवो नृपः ॥ येनोदारतरप्रतापशमिताशेषप्रजोपद्रवं । श्रीमद्गाधिपुराधिराज्यमसमं दोर्विक्रमेणार्जितम् ॥ ### [v3.c34.s1.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.49) केदार-रामेश्वर-सोमनाथ-सुंडीर-कालनल-रुद्रसत्कैः । सुराश्रयैः व्याप्य च यः समन्तात् यथार्थसंज्ञो जगतीं चकार ॥ ### [v3.c34.s1.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.50) ∗ (Udepur Praśasti Ep. Ind. I.) ### [v3.c34.s1.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34.s1.55) † शासितं विहितं दत्तं ज्ञातं तदभ्य केनचित् । किमन्त्यकविराजस्य श्रीभोजस्य प्रशस्यते ( Ep. Ind. I p. 222 ). _First 79 of 402 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34)_ ## Linked texts (37) - [Rājataraṅgiṇī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.kashmir.rajatarangini) — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit - [Aṣṭādhyāyī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.astadhyayi) — Pāṇini, Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Hammīramahākāvya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.rajasthana.hammira) — Nayacandrasūri, Sanskrit - [Kirātārjunīya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.bharata.kiratarjuniya) — Bhāravi, Sanskrit - [Donative record at the Udayeśvara temple, Udayapur, Madhya Pradesh, dated V.S. 1222](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.east.pala.udaypur-udayesvara-temple-entrance*inpar1501) — Sanskrit - [Epigraphia Indica](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.ei) - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Pṛthvīrāj Rāso](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vernacular.hindi.raso.prthviraj_raso) — Cand Bardāī, Hindi - [Raghuvaṃśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.rama.raghuvamsa) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Vājasaneyisaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.suklayajur*vajasaneyi) — Sanskrit - [Indian Antiquary](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.ia) - [Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.monument.adhai-din-ka-jhonpra) - [Khajuraho](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.khajuraho) - [Mahoba](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mahoba) - [Kunwar Math](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.monument.kunwar-math) - [Dvyāśrayakāvya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.jaina.dvyasraya) — Hemacandra, Sanskrit - [Vikramāṅkadevacarita](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.daksinatya.vikramankadeva) — Bilhaṇa, Sanskrit - [Prabodhacandrodaya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.allegorical.prabodhacandrodaya) — Kṛṣṇamiśra, Sanskrit - [Pṛthvīrājavijaya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.rajasthana.prthvirajavijaya) — Jayānaka, Sanskrit - [Vadnagar Prasasti of the reign of Kumarapala](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.west.caulukya.vadnagar-prasasti-of-the-reign-of-kumarapala) — Sanskrit - [Bhera-Ghat Stone Inscription of the Queen Alhanadevi. The \[Chedi\] Year 907](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.kalacuri.bhera-ghat-stone-inscription-of-the-queen-alhanadevi-the) — Sanskrit - [An undated prasasti from the reign of Mahendrapala of Kanauj](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.west.pratihara.an-undated-prasasti-from-the-reign-of-mahendrapala-of-kanauj) — Sanskrit - [Māndhātā plates of Dēvapāla; \[Vikrama-\]Saṁvat 1282 (ed. Kielhorn 1908)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.paramara.mandhata-copper-plate-inscription-of-devapala-vikrama-year*kielhorn1908) — Sanskrit - [Jabalpur copper-plate inscription of Yaśaḥkarṇadeva](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.kalacuri.jabalpur-copper-plate-inscription-of-yasahkarnadeva) — Sanskrit - [Mount Abu inscription of Tejāḥpāla (No. I)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.west.caulukya.mount-abu-inscription-of-tejahpala-no-i) — Sanskrit - [Dubkund stone inscription of the Kachchhapaghāta Vikramasiṁha. The \[Vikrama\] year 1145](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.kacchapaghata.dubkund-stone-inscription-of-the-kachchhapaghata) — Sanskrit - [Royal Asiatic Society plate of Vijaya-Chandra and the Yuvaraja Jayachchandra. —Samvat 1225](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.north.gahadavala.royal-asiatic-society-plate-of-vijaya-chandra-and-the) — Sanskrit - [Basahi plate of Govindachandra. Samvat 1161](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.north.gahadavala.basahi-plate-of-govindachandra-samvat-1161) — Sanskrit - [Benares copper-plate inscription of Karṇadeva. The \[Chedi\] year 793](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.kalacuri.benares-copper-plate-inscription-of-karnadeva-the-chedi) — Sanskrit - [No. 2](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.unlocated.chaulukya.no-2) — Sanskrit - [Sunak grant of the Chaulukya king Karna I.](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.west.caulukya.sunak-grant-of-the-chaulukya-king-karna-i) — Sanskrit - [Plate of Devavarmadeva. \[Vikrama\]-Saṁvat 1107](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.candella.plate-of-devavarmadeva-vikrama-samvat-1107) — Sanskrit - [Mahābalipuram Inscription of Rājasiṁha-Narasiṁhavarman II](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.south.pallava.mahabalipuram-inscription-of-rajasimha-narasimhavarman-ii) — Sanskrit - [A Chandella inscription from Mahoba](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.candella.a-chandella-inscription-from-mahoba) — Sanskrit - [Nāhāni Umarwān inscription of the reign of Jayasiṁhadeva, Vikrama 1525](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.west.cahumana.nahani-umarwan-inscription-of-the-reign-of-jayasimhadeva) — Sanskrit - [Dohad inscription of the Chaulukya king Jayasiṁha-deva](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.west.caulukya.dohad-inscription-of-the-chaulukya-king-jayasimha-deva) — Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c34) · Pramāṇa