South Indian Inscriptions

KALACHURI OF TRIPURI

Puluńja stone inscription¹, which seems to be dated in 1200 A.C., Simhana is called Dáhala- brit-kut ühala ‘ a very curiosity of the heart of (the people of) the Dáhala country ‘. The expression is perhaps intended to signify that when Simhana invaded Dáhala, the people Of the country flocked together out of curiosity to see him.

It is not known when Vijayasimha’s reign came to an end. The Kumbhi plates² and the Bhérá-Ghát inscription³ mention Ajayasimha as Mahárajákumára,or crown prince. He was plainly Vijayaśimha’s son, but whether he actually ascended the throne is not known. Vimalaśiva seems to have continued as Rajaguru during the reign of Vijayasimha.⁴

We have already seen that towards the close of his reign, of Vijayasimha lost the northern portion of Baghelkhand. The western portion, consisting of the Saugor and Damoh districts, was also soon occupied by the Chandēllas.⁵ A stone inscription⁶ dated V. 1344 (1287 A.C.), found at Hindoria, II miles from Damoh , states that the local chief Vághadēva owed allegiance to Bhōjavarmadeva of Kálańjara. Another stone inscription, found at Bamhani⁷ in the same district and dated V. 1364 (1308 A.C.), mentions the same Chief as a feudatory of Hammiravarman of Kálańjara, who had in the meantime succeeded Bhōjavarman. No inscription of the Chandellas have, however, been discovered in the Jabalpur District in which Tripurī, the Kalachuri capital, was situated.⁸ if the Kalachuris retained their hold on this district, they must have owned the suzerainty of the chandéllas.

The recently discovered Purushōttampurī plates⁹ of the reign of the Yádava king Rámachandra, dated Saka 1232 (1310 A.C.), state that Rámachandra had defeated in a moment the king of the great and extensive Dáhala country. The inscription does not name the king, nor does it state to which royal family he belonged. Perhaps the Chandēlla king Hammiravarman who had a large part of Dáhala under his sway was the king defeated by Ramachandra.

In the meanwhile, Muslim power was slowly penetrating Baghelkhand. Násirud-din Mahmud (1246-66 A.C.) appointed Malik Julachi Governer of the Chēdi country. The latter’s son Hisám-ud-din, placed Jallála Khōjá in charge of the country now comprised in theDamoh District . An inscription of the latter, dated V. 1385(1328 A.C.), has been discovered at Batihágarh. 21 miles north-west of Damoh.¹⁰ The discovery of this inscrip- tion in the vicinity of Damoh indicated how precarious was the hold of the Chandēlla rulers on Dáhala. After 1310 A.C we have no records of the Chandellas or the Kalachuris from the Chēdi or Dáhala country.
_____________________

¹ S.M.H.D., Vol. II, p. 62.
² Appendix, No.4.
³No. 69,1.3.
⁴No.70.1.12. The kumbhī plates (Appendix, No.4), mention Vidyadeva as the Raja- Guru of Vijayasimha
⁵ A stone inscription found at Ráhatgrah(Saugor District, Madhya Pradesh), dated V. 1312 (1256 A.C.) mentions Mahárájádhirája Jayavarman II of Dhárá. Ind, Ant., Vol.XX, p. 84. This shows that the Paramáras had penetrated earlier into the Saugar District.
⁶J.C.P.B.(second ed.), p. 56.
⁷Ep. Ind., Vol,XVI, p. 10, n. 4.
⁸ The Malkápuram stone pillar inscription dated S. 1183 (1261 A.C.) states athat the śaiva Archárya Visvesvarasambhu was the dikshá -guru of the Kalachuri kings. He was second in spiritual descent from Vimalasiva the Raja guru of Vijayasimyha. If the statement of the malkapuram inscription is correct, the Kalachuris may have benn holding Tripuri and the surrounding territory till 1240 A.C. at leat. A frag- mentary inscription incised in characters of anbout the 12th century is not noticed A.C. found at Tewar mentions Bhimapala. Ind. Ant., Vol.XX, p. 85. But this name is not noticed in any genealogies of the periods,
⁹ Ep. Ind., Vol. XXV, P. 211.
¹⁰ I.C.P.B., p. 58.