|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Kumârapâla himself is dated in Vikrama-Saṁvat 1202.[1] According to Mêrutuṅga’s Prabandhachintâmaṇi Jayasiṁhadêva reigned until Vikrama-Saṁvat 1199,[2] and in the same author’s Vichâraśrêṇî the date of his death is given as the third day of the bright half of Kârttika of Vikrama-Saṁvat 1199, and that of his successor’s coronation as the fourth day of the bright half of Mârgaśira of the same year.[3] Ballâla, therefore, must have found his death between A.D. 1142 and 1169, the date of the Sômnâthpattan inscription. No king of that name, however, is found among the Paramâra rulers of Mâlava of this or, in fact, of any other period, and it is altogether improbable that Ballâla belonged to this dynasty. The question who he was and how he came to acquire the kingdom of Mâlava cannot be answered at present, but I wish to draw attention to the fact discussed at length by Professor Kielhorn[4] that after the death of Yaśôvarman, which must have occurred between A.D. 1135 and 1144,[5] the Mâlava Kingdom was for some time in a troubled state apt to rouse the ambitions of a conqueror or usurper. Dhârâvarsha, who seems to have been extraordinarily fond of hunting expeditions (v. 37), was an enemy of the lord of Kauṅkaṇa or Koṅkaṇ (v. 36), but no particulars are added. I have quoted already above the Mount Âbû inscription of Vikrama-Saṁvat 1265 (A.D.1209), where Dhârâvarsha, ‘ the lord of Chandrâvatî, the Śambhu to the Asuras─ the provincial chiefs (mâṇḍalika),’ is mentioned as the feudatory of Bhîmadêva II.
His younger brother Prahlâdana is called he ‘ whose sword was dexterous in defending the
illustrious Gûrjara king, when his power had been broken on the battle-field by Sâmantasiṁha ’
(v. 38). The Gûrjara king who was saved by Prahlâdana from Sâmantasiṁha, of course, was
Bhîmadêva II., but it is difficult to say who that Sâmantasiṁha was. No further details being
given and the name being not uncommon in this period, it is hardly possible to identify that
prince with certainty. The person who in my opinion has the best right o being considered the
Sâmantasiṁha of the inscription is the Guhila chief of that name mentioned in two inscriptions
on Mount Âbû[6] and at Sâdaḍî.[7] In the former inscription[8] he takes the fifth place after Vijayasiṁha, who must have flourished about A.D. 1125,[9] and the fifth place before Têjaḥsiṁha, whose
Chitôrgaḍh inscription is dated in Vikrama-Saṁvat 1324 = A.D. 1257.[10] He thus appears to
have reigned about A.D. 1200, which would well accord with the fact that his adversary
Prahlâdana was yuvarâja in A.D. 1209.[11] Also from a geographical point of view there is no
objection to my identification, as Mêdapâṭa, the country of the Guhilas, bordered the district
ruled by the Paramâras of Chandrâvatî. It would be quite natural therefore to find Prahlâdana
defending his suzerain against the attack of a Guhila chief. That the relations between the
Chaulukyas and the Guhilas were not always of a friendly nature is proved by a grant of
Vîsaladêva, the son of Vîradhavala, where the king is given the epithet Mêdapâṭakadêśa-kalusha-râjya-vallî-kand-ôchchhêdana-kuddâla-kalpa, ‘ he who resembled a hoe for rooting out
the bulb of (that) creeper─ the turbulent government of the Mêdapâṭaka country.’[12]
[1] Bhâvnagar Inscr. p. 158 ff.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|