South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

Jaitrasiṁha is mentioned in the Balvān (Kotah District) inscription of the Chāhamāna Hammīra of Raṇastambhapura, dated V. S. 1345, almost contemporaneous with the present grant which is dated V. S. 1347. Similarly, there are a number of Chāchigadēvas and Vīsaladēvas, but none of them belonged to the Vaijavāpāyana or Vijapāyana family.

We shall, therefore, try to locate the family from whatever historical information we can glean from the text of the inscription. We know that Mahārājakula and Mahārāṇaka are not royal titles, but only feudatory epithets, notwithstanding the extravagant praise the panegyrist has lavished on their owners. Mahārājakula Chāchigadēva, the founder of the family, is called nṛipa. Being the great-grandfather of Jaitrasiṁhadēva, the donor of the present grant, dated V. S. 1347, he must have lived somewhere about V. S. 1270, and was most probably a feudatory of the Chaulukya king Bhīma of Gujarāt. In the inscription he is described as the extirpator of the Mālavas. The possible explanation of this feat of his valour that we can offer is that he might have helped Lavaṇaprasāda and his son Vīradhavala, the faithful Vāghēlā adherents of Bhīma, in defeating Devapāla, the Paramāra king of Mālava in a battle fought at Ābu in V. S. 1288. The panegyrist may have made a big boast of it in order to please his patron.

Chāchigadēva’s son Sōḍhala is said to have been described as Maṇḍalēśa gaja-kēsarin by the minstrel tribes in their songs (v.5). He may have put down some Maṇḍalēśvaras, the feudatory chiefs or provincial governors, who lad often rebelled against the kingdom of Gujarāt during the reign of Bhīma or even later during the reign of the Vāghēlās who supplanted the Chaulukyas in Gujarāt. Among the offsprings of Sōḍhala, was one Jēsaḷa who proved himself to be the jewel of a ruler by bringing happiness and prosperity to his subjects. Unfortunately, he lost his life in a fierce battle against certain enemies whose names are not mentioned. Both Sōḍhala and Jēsala bore the title of Mahārāṇaka, and were, therefore, the feudatories of the king of Gujarāt like their ancestor.

The name of Jēsaladēva’s son Vīsaladēva is omitted altogether from the genealogy repeated in the documentary prose portion of the record. While still a youngster, he is said to have pleased Arjuna, the king of the Gūrjaras by his courage in the battles. This Arjuna was probably no other than the Chaulukya Vāghelā king of Gujarāt of that name who fought against the Yādavas in order to foil their repeated attacks to capture Bhṛigukachchha. He might have entrusted the sole command of these military expeditions to Vīsaladēva, his faithful feudatory, and, being pleased with his valorous achievements, given him the territory of Nandapadra as a reward for his services (verse 10). This would justify the encomium bestowed on Vīsaladēva by the panegyrist in verse 14. Vīsaladēva ruled over Nandapura (his capital) very benevolently as a semi-independent ruler. This Nandapura was near Bhṛigukachchha (modern Broach) in the Narmadā-taṭa maṇḍala. Later on, Vīsaladēva dared an attack on a Muhammadan ruler who had a very powerful; army, and was killed in action. No clue is given as to the identity of this Muhammadan ruler. It is interesting to note that the names of more than one Vīsalaḍēvas are associated with the extirpation of the Mlēchchhas or Turushkas (both terms indiscriminately applied to Muhammadans or even other foreigners). On the Aśōka pillar at Koṭha Fīroz Shāh, Delhi, we have an inscription of the Śākambharī king Vīsaladēva, also called Vigraharāja (V. S. 1220), who is described as the exterminator of the Mlēchchhas.^[1] Again, in the Paṭṭanārāyaṇa inscription^[2] of Paramāra Pratāpasiṁha (V. S. 1344), we find Vīsala, the son of Bhādadēva and the ruler of Mālava, extolled as the sole conqueror of the Turushka hosts (cf. verse 42).

This Vīsaladēva was, however, alive in 1344 V. S., and may have been a representative of Śāraṅgadēva, the son and successor of Arjuna on the throne of Gujarāt. Evidently, he was a

_______________________________________________

^[1] Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, pp. 215 ff. The verse is quoted in the Śārṅgadharapaddhati. ^[2] Ibid., Vol. XLV, p. 79.