|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF CHANDRAVATI Māgha of the (Vikrama) year 1202, on Monday. It regularly corresponds to 28th January, 1146 A.C. [1] ...The family to which the Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Yaśōdhavala belonged is not known from the extant portion of the record, and none of his predecessors too is mentioned in it. The reading of the name of the maṇḍala as Chandrāvatī in 1. 2 is also conjectural. But on the basis of the find-spot of the slab in the region of Sirōhī, which was under the sway of the Paramāra house of Ābū in the eleventh century to which the record belongs, the prince mentioned in it may safely be taken as the homonymous Paramāra king ruling over the Arbuda territory and the father of the celebrated Dhārāvarsha whose earliest known year is Vikrama Saṁvat 1220 or 1163 A.C. [2] ...The inscription commences with the date which we have seen above; and the next three lines mention a maṇḍala, the name of which is lost. This is followed by the mention of its king Yaśōdhavala with the title of a Chief Feudatory (Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara) and his chief queen Saubhāgyadēvī of the Chaulukya family. Lines 5-6 record the grant, and then, is the imprecation on those who may appropriate the grant in future. ...The next two lines mention the name of the engraver as Chāḍadēva and the word surabhi in the end, which means a cow and perhaps the earth, as remarked by Halder, to denote the sanctity of the grant. The word talāra, meaning talaraksha, which seems to denote an official title, [3] is also mentioned in the last line.
...The chief historical value of the inscription lies in its date which is the earliest known date for Yaśōdhavala; and the title of Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara attached to his name is also equally interesting. The only known records of the house before this date are the Vasantgaḍh and Bhāḍūṇḍ inscriptions of the time of Pūrṇapāla, a brother of Yaśōdhavala;s great-grandfather, dated respectively in V.S. 1099 (1042 A.C.) and 1102 (1045 A.C.), both of which were put up exactly a century before the present inscription; and the absence of any epigraphical record for these hundred years probably goes to indicate that the political situation for all this long time was uncertain in this region, as we can also know by a scrutiny of these records. The Vasantgaḍh inscription makes a bold claim on behalf of Pūrṇapāla that he vanquished many of his enemies. [4] and this praise, though conventional, appears to have been based on a historical truth. While dealing with that inscription, we have seen how Pūrṇapāla’s father Dhandhuka had succeeded inregaining his kingdom which had been annexed by the Chaulukya ruler Bhīma [5] (1022-64 A.C.), and it is possible to suggest that following his father’s example, Pūrṇapāla too may have made a successful attempt to relieve his kingdom from the yoke of the Chaulukyas. This presumption receives confirmation from the Bhāḍūṇḍ inscription which was dated three years later in Vikrama Saṁvat 1102 or 1044 A.C. and which mentions him with the usual Imperial title Mahārājādhirāja (lord paramount). But before 1062 A.C. he was again subdued by the Chaulukya ruler Bhīma I (1022-64 A. C.) who allowed him to rule as his feudatory. [6] And during the reign of Kumārapāla II (1143-71 A.C.) a similar attempt to declare independence appears to have been made also by Vikramasiṁha, a grandson of Pūrṇapāla’s brother Kṛishṇa II, but, as we are told by Jinamaṇḍana in his Kumārapālacharita, the revolter was subdued by Kumārapāla, who cast this subordinate of his into a prison for his treachery and established in his place his nephew (i.e. his brother Rāmadēva’s son Yaśōdhavala on the throne of Ābū. [7] This seems to have taken place some time between 1143 A.C., the first regnal year of Kumārapāla, and January, 1146, the time of the present inscription.
...The only geographical name figuring in the inscription is Ājāharī, which is the modern
village of Ajhārī, as already seen.
[1] As calculated by D.R. Bhandarkar in his List of Inscriptions, No. 265. He mentions the date as 18, which, from my own calculation appears to be a misprint.
CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|