|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA from his expedition against Yōgarāja, who was none other than the Chāvḍa king of Anhilvāḍapāṭan and whom scholars have identified with Avanivarman II, the great-grandson of Bāhukadahavaḷa.[1] Bāhukadhavaḷa was a feudatory of the Gūrjara-Pratīhāras. Avanivarman II Yōgarāja who continued to be a Gūrjara feudatory, was holding Surāshṭra and parts of Gujarāt from his capital at Anhilvāḍa.[2] He seems to have encroached upon Lāṭa and it was evidently to dislodge him from the area that Sīyaka II marched against him and drove him back. Owing to his occupation of part or whole of Lāṭa for a while, Yōgarāja Avanivarman II might have acquired the title of Lāṭēśa[3] and if this was the person that is referred to as Lāṭēśa in the present inscription as having been the adversary of Kēsarin, Kēsarin must have joined Sīyaka II in this expedition, as both were acting on behalf of their Rāshṭrakūṭa overlord Kṛishṇa III. If so, these events have to be placed sometime about 948-949 A.C., before the issue of the Harsōla grants. The Kachchhavāha prince who was ruling at Gwalior at this date was Lakshmaṇarāja, the father of Vajradāman of the Sāsbahu inscription, who being a Pratīhāra feudatory,[4] like Yōgarāja, might have been allied with him in his attack on Lāṭa, and was likewise defeated by Sīyaka II and Kēsarin. If what has been stated above as the possible trend of events in which Kēsarin of the present inscription encountered the Lāṭēśa and the Kach[chha]vāha is correct, it has to be supposed that the events represent an attempt made by the Pratīhāra ruler, who on this date was Mahēndrapāla II, to attack the Rāshṭrakūṭa empire in the region of Lāṭa which, however, failed to bring any success. On the other hand, the defeat sustained by the Gūrjara feudatories seems to have paved the way for the Paramāra reconquest of Mālwā. For, evidence of Pratīhāra control over the region is available only up to 946 A.C.[5] The absence of their records in Mālwā territory after this date and the evidence afforded by the Harsola grant of the Paramāras dated V. S. 1005 (949 A.C.)[6] would show clearly that their hold on it was lost, the Paramāras having established themselves firmly over the area by 949 A.C.
The events detailed above which have been placed round about 949 A.C. would, however, make it impossible for Kṛishṇa III to have been present in person to direct the campaign, for on this date he was in the south fighting the Chōḷas.[7] Consequently, the reference made to him in the present inscription for the second time in the locative case as Kṛishṇarājē may be construed to indicate his absence from the northern campaigns at this date which were fought by Sīyaka II and Kēsarin on his behalf. Or, in the alternative, Kēsarin’s conflict with the Lāṭēśa and the Kachchhavāha might have taken place much later in the reign of Kṛishṇa III as shown below. Now, it is well known that Kṛishṇa III effected a second invasion of North India sometime after 964 A.C. As proved by an inscription of his at Jura,[5] near Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, in the territory of the Kalachuris. It is known that in this expedition he was ably assisted by his Gaṅga feudatory Mārasiṁha II who, in commemoration of the victories secured by him in the north assumed the title of the ‘ lord of the Gūṛjaras.’[9] The expedition seems to have been necessitated by the growing challenge to his authority over his possessions in Bundelkhand, Mālwā _________________________________________________
[1] Above, Vol. IX, pp. I ff. and Vol. XIX, pp. 236-38 ; see History of the Paramara Dynasty, pp. 38-39. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|