North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

that he equalled Karṇa in munificence, Yudhishṭhira in truthfulness and Arjuna in heroism. Verse 30 states that ‘in his victorious march his armies reached up to the Himālayas’. The only historically important verses of this portion are 23, 28 and 31, the first of which mentions the exploits of this ruler, stating that he was “a sword to (cut down) the Gauḍas as if they were pleasure-creepers, equalled the forces of the Khasas and carried off the treasures of the Kōsalas ; before him perished the Kāśmīrī warriors ; he weakened the Mithilas, (and) was, as it were, a god of death to the Mālavas, who brought distress on the shameful Chēdis and was to the Kurus what a storm is to trees, (and) a scorching fire to the Gūrjaras”.

   Nothing is known about Yaśōvarman’s expedition against Gauḍa of Bengal, his contemporaries then ruling over the region were the Pāla kings Rājyapāla (c. 908-40) and the latter’s successor Gōpāla II (c. 940-60 A.C.). Both of them were admittedly weak rulers and the Chandēlla king may have taken an opportunity to invade their dominions, probably to make them still weaker and not with the objective of any territorial gain. It also seems possible the in course of this expedition Yaśōvarman may also have come into conflict with the people of Mithilā, i.e., North Bihār. We may also note here that the separate mention of Mithilā in this verse clearly indicates that this kingdom was a separate political unit and not under the Pālas, as held by some scholars.^[1] So far as Mālava is concerned, Yaśōvarman’s contemporary on the throne was Sīyaka alias Harshadēva, who was then busy extending his conquests particularly in the north, as we have been while editing his Harsōlā grants of V.S. 1005 or 949 A.C.; and it is reasonable to presume that his further extension of the territories in that direction may have been frustrated by the menacing potentiality of Yaśōvarman who was equally keen to extend his conquests towards the south and southwest, as we also learn from verse 45 of the present record, which reports that his son Dhaṅgadēva had under him some region around Bhilsā. As we shall presently see, Yaśōvarman snatched the fort of Kālañjara from the Rāshṭrakūṭas, on behalf of the contemporary Pratīhāra king ; and in view of this, he may be taken to be naturally hostile to the Paramāra king who was deeply attached to the Rāshṭrakūṭa power.

   Yasovarman’s kingdom was conterminous with that of the Kalachuris on its south and the struggle of this ambitious prince with them too was inevitable. His contemporary on the Kalachuri throne was Yuvarājadēva I (915-945 A.C.), who appears to have suffered a defeat at his hands, as the present inscription informs us. That Yaśōvarman had a more-than-usual grudge against the Kalachuris is indicated by the repeated mention of his victory over them. Verse 28 of the present inscription also tells us that “the fearless Yaśōvarman vanquished a Chēdi prince with his countless forces, who was being protected by a furious multitude of invincible bowmen riding elephants in rut presenting a scene of a lofty mountain of collyrium and who had planted his lotusfoot on rows of diadem of famous kings”.^[2]

   The adjective sāvadya, meaning shameful, applied to the Chēdis in the aforementioned verse of the inscription has been taken to explain that the Chandēllas had some special reason for being provoked against the royal house of the Kalachuris. We know that these kings were attached to the Rāshṭrakūṭas who were southerners and were carrying on constant raids in North India ; and besides this, Dr. S. K. Mitra has also drawn our attention to the series of political marriages between the Rāshṭrakūṭas and the Kalachuris, particularly pointing out cases in each of which the bride came from the Kalachuri family ; and this was sufficient to provoke the Chandēllas whose interests were linked up with the politics of North India.^[3]

   The verse under reference also mentions Yaśōvarman’s invasion of the Kōsalas. Kōsala here obviously appears to designate Dakshiṇa Kōsala, i.e., the region of the upper Mahanadi
______________________

^[1] see E. R. K., pp. 48-49. On p. 51 of ibid. Dr. S. K. Mitra suggests that this show of allegiance in official documents was nothing but a mere formality ; but it is rather strange that this show of allegiance and the open declaration of his hostility should find place in the same record.
^[2] Dr. V. V. Mirashi has shown that since the Kalachuri prince was a senior contemporary of Yaśōvarman, and moreover that he courted the defeat after vanquishing a number of kings, the struggle between the two has to be dated towards the close of his reign. And this is exactly the time of Yaśōvarman’s military expedition. For Mirashi’s view, see C. I. I., Vol. IV, p. Ixxxiv, which is followed here. But according to R. S. Tripathi, the Chēdi ruler was Kōkalla I, and according to S. K. Mitra, he was most probably Bālaharsha, the elder brothers of Yuvarājadēva. For the respective views, see H, K., p. 256, and E. R. K., p. 42
^[3] See Ind. Hist. Quart., Vol. XXX. pp. 189 ff. Kṛishṇa II, his son Jagattuṅga and the latter’s son Indra III had all their wives from the Kalachuri family.