North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF BHINMAL

BHINMĀL STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF KṚISHNARĀJA

...The object of the inscription is to record the restoration of the temple of Jagat-svāmin [1] (evidently the temple where it was first put). at Śrīmāla, and also to furnish it with a golden cupola and a banner. It is dated, as stated in figures in 1. 3, Sunday, the sixth of the bright half of Māgha of the year 1117, which must be referred to the Vikrama era, and the corresponding Christian date would be 31st December, 1060 A.C. [2]

...After a short sentence in prose which pays obeisance to Sūrya (the Sun) and a verse in glorification of the same deity, the record mention the date, as seen above, and then introduces the reigning king, the illustrious Mahārājādhirāja Kṛishṇarāja the son of Dhundhuka and grandson of Dēvarāja of the Paramāra lineage (11. 3-7). That he was the youngest of the three sons of Dhandhuka (Dhundhuka) is known from the Rōhērā copper-plate which gives the names of his elder brothers as Pūrṇapāla and Dantivarman and which also informs us that all the three brothers succeeded their father, one after the other, [3] Pūrṇapāla, the eldest of all these brothers is also mentioned in inscriptions from Vasantagaḍh and Bhārūṇḍ, as the son of Dhandhuka, [4] but the former of these two records gives the name of his grandfather not as Dēvarāja but as Mahīpāla; and this led D. R. Bhandarkar to assume that the names of Dēvarāja and Mahīpāla denoted the same person who was the grandfather of Kṛishṇarāja. In assuming this, Bhandarkar appears to be correct in his observation that “the discrepancy in the names of their grandfather is not of any importance, as we have several instances of one and the same prince bearing more than one names, not only identical in meaning but also distinct from one another.” [5]

... The title of Mahārājādhirāja attached to Kṛishṇarāja’s name in the present and the following inscriptions, both of which are from Bhinmāl, can be explained only by the assumption that he was appointed governor of that place by his father Dhandhuka, and in course of time he made himself independent of the Chandrāvatī throne and also of the Chaulukya supremacy. Thus he is the real founder of the Bhinmāl branch of the ruling house, It is also possible that some time subsequently he succeeded in extending his sway over the Chandrāvatī region also, where he did not allow his nephew Yōgarāja, who was the real claimant, to ascend the throne of the latter’s father, [6] and this gave rise to a long civil war in the family which continued up to the accession of Yaśōdhavala on the throne of Chandrāvatī in about the middle of the twelfth century A.C. [7]

...Lines 3-5 of the inscription give the names of the person who repaired the temple. They are : (1) Kiri(ra)ṇāditya, a son of Jēla of the Dharkuṭa family, who was an office-holder (in his turn) for the current year ; (2) Dēdahari, son of Mādhava ; (3) Dhandhanāka, son of Dharaṇachanḍa ; and (4) Dharaṇāditya, son of Sarvadēva of the Thākhāṭa (Prāgvāṭa?) family. The inscription also relates that these persons restored the temple after inducing kings, princes, Brāhmaṇas, mahājanas, citizens and the other people to resort to sauradharma, i.e., the worship of the Sun (11. 10-11), and also to contribute, as we can imagine to be the meaning of the lost portion of the inscription just thereafter.

...The inscription further relates that the very pious Brāhmaṇa Jējāka endowed the temple with a golden cupola, and a banner was furnished on it (11. 12-13). After this, the record mentions
______________________________________________

[1] The name Jagatsvāmin appears to be the same as jagatsākshī, which is a synonym of the Sun. In course of time the word jagaddēva was corrupted into jagāṁ dēva (jagatāṁ dēva ?), as the name of the temple is known at present. The name of the statue that was installed therein was Bārāji, which may have been a corrupted form of Bātārka(ji); and the site of the temple is now popularly known as of the Vrājī temple, which is evidently a further corruption of the name. Thus it is an interesting example of how a name undergoes changes with the time,
[2] As calculated by D. R. Bhandarkar in his List of Inscriptions in N. India, No. 135, The date was first calculated by Kielhorn in his List, No. 639, when he also drew attention to the fact that in the Eng. trans. the year is given wrongly as 1113. Accordingly, the other tithi mentioned in 1. 15 of the inscription. though really fell on Tuesday, 29th of May, 1061, shows the preceding night to be that of Monday, as we find in the expression Sōmē rātrau in it, in 1. 15.
[3] No. 76, v. 5.
[4] Nos. 62-63.
[5] See P. R. A. S., W.C., 1907-08, p. 38.
[6] As we are informed by the Rōhērā copper-plate. which also states that Yōgarāja’s son Rāmadēva also did not occupy the throne.
[7] H. P. D., p. 303. Probably it is due to this civil war that a reference to the name of the ruling king is omitted in the Girvaḍ stone inscription of V.S. 1181. See below, No. 187.

Home Page