|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA one of their Hindu feudatories.[1] If Malayavarman conquered Gwalior shortly after Qutbuddīn’s death, his accession probably took place sometime earlier. With the material at our disposal, his reign may be tentatively assigned to the period 1205-35 A.D. His father Vigraha seems to have flourished in the period circa 1185-1205 A.D It appears that Malayavarman and his predecessors were feudatories of the kings of Gwalior, whose subservience to the Musalmans was one of the causes that led to the extirpation of their rule from Gwalior by Malayavarman. His father Vigraha thus seems to have killed some leader or leaders of the Mlēchchha or Muslim armies that besieged Gwalior about the end of 1196 A.D. when he was fighting on behalf of his overlord, the king of Gwalior (Rai Solankh Pal of the Tājul Ma’asir). It may be noticed that the occupation of the Gwalior fortress by Iltutmish in 1232 A.D. did not mean the end of Malayavarman’s rule. The Tabaqāt-i-Nāsirī says that Milak Deo (i.e. Malayavarmadēva) succeeded in escaping from the besieged fortress. That he continued to rule over some parts of the Gwalior region seems to be suggested by the other Kurēṭhā plate, edited below, which was issued by his successor in V. S. 1304 (1247 A.D.). For some time after 1232 A.D. the Musalmans were probably holding sway only over a small area around the fortress of Gwalior which, however, could not be recovered by the Hindus for many years to come.[2] The relations of Malayavarman, after his escape from the fortress of Gwalior, with the Muslim occupants of the fortress are unknown. The fall of the Pratīhāra house of Gwalior probably led to the rise of the Jajapāllas of Nalapura (Narwar), who may have originally been feudatories of the king of Gwalior.[3] Of the geographical names mentioned in the inscription, Gōpādri is of course modern Gwalior while Charmaṇvatī is the river Chambal, the well-known tributary of the Yamunā. Kudavaṭhē, the gift village, has been identified with Kurēṭhā which is the findspot of the record.
TEXT[4] [Matres : verses 1, 12, 13, 15 Āryā ; verses 2-4, 10-11, 16-22 Anushṭubh ; verses 5-6, 9 Vasantatilakā ; verse 7 Upajāti ; verse 8 Indravaṁśā ; verse 14 Śārdūlavikrīḍita.] 1 Siddham[5] || Ōm[6] namō Dharmmāya || Dēśē kāḷē pātrē śraddhāvat-sātvi(ttvi)kēna bhāvēna | dānaṁ yasya nidānaṁ sa jayati Dharmaḥ satāṁ 2 sēvyaḥ | [|*] 1 ]||*] Vṛiṁdārak-āsura-gaṇair=archchit-āṁhri-yug-āṁvu(bu)jā || dēvī Malaya- bhūpālaṁ sā pāyād=Āmralōhitā ||2 [||*] Nishkalaṁka-Pratīhāra- ______________________________________________________
[1] Bhandarkar thinks that Malayavarman’s capture of Gwalior refers to the recovery of the fort by the Hindus
from the Muhammadans in the confusion caused by Qutbuddīn’s death in 1210 A.D. (PRASI, WC, 1915-16,
p. 59). But the Muslim historians do not say that in 1196 A.D. Gwalior was occupied by the Musalmans and a
Muslim officer was placed in charge of the fortress. Altekar’s statement that ‘ the Kurēṭhā plate of Malayavarman
claims that this fort (Gwalior) was recaptured by the king from the Muslims’ (above, Vol. XXVI, p. 281) is wrong.
On the basis of the reference to Malayavarman’s victory over a powerful enemy in line 8 of the fragmentary inscription, he further suggests, “ It would appear that the Muslim general, who was in charge of Gwalior, died fighting
when he lost the fort to king Malayavarman ” (loc. cit.). But we know that no Muslim officer was placed in charge
of the Gwalior fortress in 1196 A.D. Moreover Malayavarman is now known to have fought also with other
enemies besides the ruler of Gwalior.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
