North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE YAJVAPALAS OF NARWAR

entire record is in verse, consisting of 70 verses composed in the Kāvya style, all of which are numbered.

   With reference to orthography, we note that (1) b is everywhere denoted by the sign for v, as in vabhūva, l. 25 ; (2) a class-consonant as a subscript of r is generally doubled, e.g., in sarvva- l. 5, and t as a superscript of r is occasionally doubled, as in –chhattra-, l. 5 but not in tatra, l. 6 ; (3) in a very few instances the dental sibilant is employed for the palatal, e.g., in prasasti-, l. 39, and vice versa is the case in –śrōta- (for srōta) in l. 38 ; (4) pṛishṭha-mātrā is used with a few exceptions as in -pratishṭhō-, l. 21 ; and in a few instances the vertical of it cannot be distinguished from a daṇḍa and the ā-mātrā of the preceding letter ; (5) omitting a few instances, e.g., in vv. 13 and 26, the final m is wrongly changed to anusvāra ; and finally, (6) ujjvala in l. 12 is spelt as ujvala, aṅghri in l. 14 as aṁhri, arṇṇava in l. 40, with dental n, parjanya as paryaṇya in l. 33 ; and kh is substituted by sh in instances like ashaṇḍa, l. 23, shāha, l. 27 and shaṇḍita, l. 32. The word tanūruha, which generally denotes a ‘hair’ is used in the sense of ‘a son’ in l. 20. Errors in composition are pointed out in the transcript below.

   The inscription belongs to the reign of Āsalarāja or Āsalladēva of the Yajvapāla dynasty of Narwar (Nalapura), and its object is to record the construction of a temple by the royal officer Jaitrasiṁha (v. 36) and its consecration by Nāgadēva, in the year which is mentioned in v. 40 in wordnumerals as nidhi (9), indu (1), agni (3) and again indu (1), i.e., 1319, which is evidently to be taken as of the Vikrama era. The year is repeated in figures in the end, where the unit figure is partly engraved and the decimal figure is altogether omitted, leaving its place vacant. The month, the paksha and such other details are not mentioned ; and taking the year as Chaitrādi current, it is equivalent to 1261 A.C., and as expired, to 1262 A.C.

   The inscription is a sectarian record, and a praśasti, as the word is used in v. 67 and also in each of the following two verses. It may be split up into three sections. The first of these sections, which comprises vv. 1-14, begins with paying homage to Ādidēva (Ṛishabhadēva), Pārśvanātha, Mahāvīra, Śāradā and the (Jaina) saints, devoting one verse to each of them. It then mentions the ruling family of the Yajvapālas, ‘which was glorious in bringing the earth (i.e., the particular region) under one sovereignty’ ; and the first person introduced here is Y(P)aramāḍirāja, who is stated to have ‘excelled Skanda, the destroyer of the demon Tāraka’ (v. 7). Nothing can be gleaned from this poetic description. He was succeeded by Chāhaḍa, who is stated to have been ‘a conflagration to scorch the forest of hostile kings’ ; and though none of his adversaries is specified here, one of them appears to have been, as we are informed by Minhāj-ud-dīn, Malik Nusrat-ud-dīn Tayasāi, a general of Sultān Iltutmish, defeated by him on the bank of the Kālī Sindh in 1234 A.C.^[1] He is no doubt the Chāhar-i-Ajar of Minhaj- ud-dīn who calls him ‘the greatest of raes’ in tract comprising Gwaliur, Chandiri, Nurwur and Malwah and as having 5,000 horsemen and 200,000 footmen under his command’ and also the same as Jahir Deo of Firishta.^[2] We have no inscription of Chāhaḍa himself or of his time, but on the basis of coins issued by him,^[3] we know him to have been on the throne at least from V.S. 1294 (?) to 1311 (1237-1254 A.C.). The first of these dates, as rightly observed by Dr. D. C. Sircar, may be taken at least three years earlier when this king is stated to have gained victory over the Muslim general, as just seen. He was a contemporary of Sultan Nāsiruddīn (1246-66 A.C.) of Delhi.

   The record mentions nothing particular about Paramāḍirāja ; and this is the only record where his name figures. He may have been an ancestor of Chāhaḍa, and perhaps his father, as can be known from the way in which he is introduced here as any other ruler.^[4] We have no evidence to show that this person actually occupied the throne ; and it is evident that in the confusion that followed the death of Iltutmish in 1233 A.C., Chāhaḍa, who was then watching
__________________________

^[1] Tabaqāt-i-Nāsirī, Raverty’s Translation, Vol. II, p. 175.
^[2] Ibid., pp. 690-91; and Tārīkh-i-Firuz Shāhī, Briggs’ Translation, Vol. I, p. 239 respectively.
^[3] Cunningham, Coins of Med, India, pp. 92 ff. Also see R. D. Banerji, Num. Suppl., . No. XXXIII, pp. 80 ff, and the Section on Coinage and Currency, above. >
^[4] Verse 8 introduces Chāhaḍa by the expression tadanu (after him), and similar expressions occur in vv. 9 and 11 while introducing Nṛivarman and Āsalla, who were respectively his son and grandson, as we know from the other records of the house.