|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA cendants of the Rāshṭrakūṭa emperors, the Paramāra rulers would have continued to mention the fact even in their later records. The above account of the mythical origin of the Paramāra family is followed by a long list of Paramāra kings ending with the ruler, during whose reign the charter under study was issued. There are altogether 24 names in this section, the first 9 of which are unhistorical. These imaginary names are : Kamaṇḍaludhara, king of Dhārā (verse 16) ; his son Dhūmarāja whose name was justified by the smoke arising from the cities of his enemies that were burnt by him (verses 17-18) ; his son Dēvasiṁhapāla (verse 19) ; his son Kanakasiṁha (verse 20) ; his son Śrīharsha (verse 20a) ; Jagaddēva king of Mālava (verses 21-22) ; Sthirakāya (verse 23) ; Vōśari, lord of Dhārā (verse 24) ; and his son Vīrasiṁha (verse 25). These names forming a group are introduced in the genealogy of the Imperial Paramāras for the first time in the present record. Of the nine names, Dhūmarāja seems to have been adopted form the genealogy of the Paramāras of Arbuda[1] while Vīrasiṁha, although he is called the son of an imaginary Vōśari, may be a modification of the name of Vairisiṁha who was the father of Vākpati I mentioned in our inscription in the following stanza (verse 26). A king named Jagaddēva no doubt flourished in the family, but at a much later date than the period indicated by our inscription.[2] There was no Śrīharsha in the family, who was the son and successor of a king named Kanakasiṁha.[3] It will be seen that imagination and confusion have both played a part in the genealogy of the Imperial Paramāras quoted above from the inscription under study.
Verses 26-56 give the names of 15 Paramāra rulers of the Imperial house, although some of the kings have been omitted. Vākpatirāja is mentioned in verse 26 as famous for his sūktis in the Prakrit language ; but the well-known literary merits of his great-grandson Muñja (Vākpati II) who is separately mentioned in verses 28-29 of our record, appear to be reflected in this statement. Verse 27 mentions Sīyā (i.e. Sīyaka alias Śrī-Harsha, c. 948-74 A.D.) who was the grandson of Vākpati, and omits Vākpati’s son Vairisiṁha alias Vajraṭa. The next two stanzas (verses 28-29) describe Muñja (who was the son and successor of Siyaka and ruled in c. 974-95 A.D.) without specifically mentioning his relations with Sīyā, while verses 30-31 mention Sindhurāja (who was the brother and successor of Muñja and ruled in c. 995-1010 A.D.) similarly without stating his relations with Muñja. The following four stanzas (verses 32-35) describe the achievements of Bhōja (c. 1010-55 A.D.), son of Sindhurāja, in vague terms. Verse 36 passes over Bhōja’s son and successor Javasiṁha (c. 1055-60 A.D.) and mentioned Udayāditya (c. 1060-90 A.D.) who appears to have been a distant cousin of Bhōja. Udayāditya is stated to have recovered the kingdom from the Gūrjara king. This reference to the Gūrjara occupation of Malwa no doubt alludes to the Parāmāra king’s struggle with the Chaulukyas of Gujarāt. Acording to the Ras Mālā, supported by the Prabandhachintāmaṇi, Kalachuri Karṇa (c. 1041-72 A.D.) of Ḍāhala and Chaulukya Bhīma (c. 1022-64 A.D.) of Gujarāt jointly attacked king Bhōja of Ujjayinī, defeated and killed him and destroyed the city of Dhārā.[4] The reference may also be to Udayāditya’s struggle with Chaulukya Karṇa I (c. 1064-94 A.D.), son of Bhīma I. While a Chitorgarh inscription[5] of ____________________________________________
[1] See above, pp. 135 ff.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
