|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Dēvapāla’s son and successor was Jaitugi (known dates V.S. 1292-1300, i.e. 1236-44 A.D.) mentioned in verse 49. Verses 50-56 describe the Paramāra king during whose rule the charter under discussion was issued. He was the younger brother of Jaitugi ; but the relationship between the two is not indicated in our record. It is interesting to note that he is called Jayavarman in verses 50 and 56 (as well as in line 87 and verse 72 below) but Jayasiṁha in verses 51-52. This king was so far known under the name Jayavarman (it is doubtful whether the name is Jayasiṁha in one of the cases) from the following inscriptions of his time : (1) Rahatgarh stone inscription[1] of V.S. 1312 (1256 A.D.) ; (2) Modi stone inscription[2] of V.S. 1314 (1258 A. D.), and (3) Māndhātā plates[3] of V.S. 1317 (1261 A. D.). The Pathari inscription[4] of V.S. 1326 (1269 A. D.) belongs to the reign of a Paramāra king named Jayasiṁha and there is a controversy amongst scholars whether Jayavarman mentioned in the Rahatgarh, Modi and Māndhātā records is identical with Jayasiṁha of the Pathari inscription.[5] That a Paramāra king named Jayasiṁha ruled from Maṇḍapa some time before V.S. 1345 (1289 A. D.) is also suggested by the Balvan inscription[6] of Chāhamāna Hammīra of Raṇastambhapura as his father Jaitrasiṁha who died in V.S. 1339 (1283 A. D.) is stated to have defeated the said king. The present inscription, dated V. S. 1331 (1274 A.D.) and mentioning the Paramāra king by both the names Jayavarman and Jayasiṁha, shows clearly that scholars like Ganguly who regard Jayasiṁha of the Pathari inscription as different from Jayavarman of the Rahatgarh, Modi and Māndhātā (V.S. 1317) inscriptions are wrong. Ray’s suggestion[7] that Jaitugi may have also been known by the name Jayasiṁha is equally wrong since the two brothers, Jaitugi and Jayavarman, could not both of them have enjoyed the common name Jayasiṁha. The rule of Paramāra Jayasiṁha-Jayavarman may be assigned to the period 1255-75 A.D.
Verse 52 of our inscription seems to suggest that Jayasiṁha-Jayavarman was regarded as both a dauhitra (daughter’s son) and a pautra (son’s son) with reference to his succession to the Paramāra throne. This statement seems to throw some light on the controversy whether Dēvapāla of a branch line of the family succeeded Arjunavarman of the main line by overthrowing the latter by violence or because Arjunavarman died without leaving any male heir.[8] If the stanza in question means to say that Jayasiṁha-Jayavarman claimed to be a dauhitra of Arjunavarman, Dēvapāla may be regarded as having succeeded Arjunavarman as the latter’s son-in-law and heir. Verse 54 speaks of Jayasiṁha-Jayavaraman’s success against the king of Dākshiṇātya lying to the south of the Vindhyas. This may refer to his struggle with the Yādava king Rāmachandra who, according to his Thana plates[9] of Śaka 1194 (1272 A. D.), defeated the Mālavas. The Udari stone inscription[10] of the same king, dated Śaka 1198 (1276 A.D.), speaks of his victory over king Arjuna of Mālava, who was apparently the immediate successor of Jayasiṁha-Jayavarman and may be regarded as Arjunavarman II. The same Paramāra king is also mentioned in the Balvan __________________________________________________
[1] Cunningham, ASR, Vol. X, p. 31.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
