North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA

ATRO STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF JAYASIṀHA

king of Dhārā. and the high-sounding title of Mahārājādhirāja shows that he was a paramount ruler.

... We have seen that since the time of Udayāditya the northern frontier of the Paramāra kingdom extended up to Jhālrāpāṭan and Shērgaḍh where his inscriptions were found [1] ; and the present inscription, which was discovered at Atrū, which is about 65 kms. due north-east of the former of these places and about 20 kms. due north-east of the latter, indicates that Jayasiṁha, or some of his predecessors, extended his territories a little further in that direction. It is also interesting to note that the present inscription was dated in the same year as that which was found at Mōḍī, [2] which is about 110 kms. due south-west of it, and the difference in both these records is only that whereas the former mentions the name as Jayasiṁha, the latter mentions it as Jayavarman. And as the two similar names are both endowed with the same title of Mahārājādhirāja, we can definitely establish the identity of both these rulers, as will be seen below. [3] Thus we may also note that probably the Paramāra frontiers in the north now ran along the lower course of the Chambal, to the north of which extended the kingdom of the Chāhamānas of Raṇathambhōr.

... Jayasiṁha’s contemporary on the Chāhamāna throne was Jaitrasiṁha, who, in his son Hammīra’s Balvan inscription of V.S. 1345, is described as harassing a chief named Jayasiṁha, in Maṇḍapa-durga, i.e., the fort of Māṇḍū, and who also defeated and captured hundreds of the latter’s brave warriors at Jhampaighaṭṭa and sent them as prisoners to Raṇathambhōr. [4] Jhampaighaṭṭa has been correctly identified with Jhapaṭ on the Chambal, about 11 kms. to the south of Lākhērī, a station on the Kōṭā-Sawāīmādhōpur branch of the Western Railway [5] ; and from this it becomes all evident that Jayasiṁha, whose kingdom extended up to that place, came into a clash with his adjacent neighbour in that direction who was the Jaitrasiṁha of Raṇathambhōr. [6]

... Of the localities mentioned in the inscription, Mhaisaḍā appears to be the modern village Bhainrā, situated about 6 kms. straight west of Atrū. [7] The word paṁviṭha in 1. 2 presents a difficulty, for it cannot be known whether it denotes a locality or its first letter is an abbreviation of Paṇḍita and the next two letters from a name, as Vīṭhū, a short form of Viṭṭhala. And even if the former of these alternatives be correct, it is difficult to identify the place. There is, however, a village of the name of Penṭā, situated about 60 kms. due north-east of Bhainrā and now included in the Shāhbād tehsīl of the Kōṭā District. [8] This tehsīl adjoins to that of Atrū in its north-east ; and the distance of this place from Atrū goes to suggest the identity of Penṭā with Paṃvīṭha, if at all a village is thereby intended. However, nothing can definitely be said on this point, for want of a corroborative evidence.
__________________________________________________________

[1] Above, Nos. 22 and 23, respectively.
[2] Below, No. 56.
[3] See No. 60.
[4] Ep. Ind. Vol. XIX, pp. 49-50. Text vv. 7-9. It is I. N. I., No. 623.
[5] Dasharatha Sharma, Early Chauhāna Dynasties, p. 105, n. 20.
[6] In view of the fact that all the places mentioned here lie in a region which was then included in the Paramāra dominions and also in the neighbourhood of the provenance of the present record, I am inclined to agree with D. R. Bhandarkar in assigning it to the Paramāra Jayasiṁha II. and not to Jaitrasiṁha of the Chāhamāna house of Raṇathambhōr, as tentatively taken by D. Sharma. suggesting that the latter too may have been known as Jayasiṁha. See E. C. D., p. 106. n. 27. Here it may also be pointed out that the Rājasthānī from of the name Jaitrasiṁha would be Jētsī or Jaitasī and not Jayasiṁgha. as we find in the present inscription. Nor do I agree with H. C. Ray who held that “ the record probably belongs to Jayasiṁha of Anhilwāḍ and tha the era therefore is the (Siṁha) era instituted by him.”See D. H. N.I., Vol. II. p. 965, n. 4 . Ray’s remarks are based on what is stated in P. R. A.S., W. C., 1905-06. pp. 56-57. But the impressions before me distinctly show that the year was given not in two but in four figures. Of these, the second figure, which was originally written 4. has been changed to 3. later on, as it appears in overwriting, and the last two figures, which are now lost, have left traces showing that they were actually engraved.
[7] C. I. R. A., p. 528, No. 49.
[8] Ibid., p. 516, No. 12.

Home Page