|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA RĀHATGAḌH STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF JAYASIṀHADEVA ...The inscription refers itself to the victorious reign of the illustrious Mahārājādhirāja Jayasiṁhadēva of Dhārā, and its purpose appears to draft a royal document, the details of which cannot be made out owing to the indistinctness of the letters intended to show it. The inscription is dated, only in numerical symbols, on the seventh tithi of the bright fortnight, of Bhādrapada in the year 1312, which must be taken as belonging to the Vikrama era. According to Kielhorn’s calculations, the date fully corresponds to Monday, the 28th August, 1256 A.C., and thus it is quite regular. [1] The week-day was Monday. ...After an auspicious symbol and the word siddhiḥ, following it, the inscription opens with the date as seen above. This date is important as it is the earliest known date of the Paramāra ruler Jayasiṁha, who is no other than Jayavarman, a son of Dēvapāla, as we shall discuss below. [2] The next known date of this king is V. 1314 (1257 A.C.), furnished by the fragmentary inscription from Mōḍī. [3] The inscription then proceeds to mention some event happening during the reign of the glorious Mahārājādhirāja Jayasiṁhadēva, but it is all lost. It mentions an officer under the king, whose name is also lost, and a maṇḍala with the name Uparihāḍā, in 11. 4 and 3, respectively. Below are given some name and a title, e.g. Śrīdhara in 1. 3, Rā, i.e. Rāüta in 1.7 and Chūḍādēva in 1. 8 ; but in what connection they are all mentioned cannot be made out. ... The reading of the name of the king, which is partially preserved at the end of 1. 2 and the commencement of 1. 3, is not free from doubt. Cunningham read it as Jayavarmadēva, but Kielhorn, while calculating the date in the Ind. Ant. referred to above, read it as Jaya[siṁ ?]ha. All the impressions before me show that the sign of the medial i is very distinct, though partly come out, and the letter following it, though not fully preserved, is more like h than v, For these reasons I agree with Kielhorn in taking the latter part of the name to be siṁha. But as we know the same ruler bore both these names, viz., Jayasiṁha and Jayavarman, historically it makes no difference. This person was a son of Dēvapāla and the younger brother of Jaitugidēva, as we already know. And in view of the fact of that Jaitugi’s only date is recorded to be V. 1300 or 1243 A.C. [4] , the present inscription, which is the earliest of Jayasiṁha’s reign, clearly indicates that he succeeded his elder brother Jaitugidēva sometime between 1243 and 1256 A.C. We also know that in Jaitugi’s time Mālwā had suffered from the invasions of the Yādava Kṛishṇa from the south, of the Vāghēlas from the west, and also from the Muslim general Balban from the north ; [5] and the present inscription goes to indicate that in spite of all these odds, Jayavarman, besides maintaining the integrity of his kingdom, had successfully penetrated so far in the Saugor (Sāgar) District, following the foot-steps of his father, whose records are found in the Khaṇḍwā District which is to its west. [6] It is possible that Jayavarman wrested some part around Rāhatgaḍh from the Chandēllas, who were then powerful in that region, as already shown by Dr. V.V. Mirashi. [7]
...Uparihāḍā is the only geographical name mentioned in the inscription, as a maṇḍala, I am unable to identify the place, though it appears to signify the region around Rāhatgaḍh.
TEXT
[8]
[1] Ind. Ant., Vol. XX. p. 84, No. 4. In ibid, n. 3, is mentioned an inscription from Udaipur and dated V. 1311 (I. N. I., No. 550). It is not edited here as the stone is now lost. and no impression could also be had.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|