|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA MĀNDHĀTĀ COPPER-PLATE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF JAYAVARMAN and confusion have both played a part in the genealogy of the Imperial Paramāras quoted above from the inscription under studyâ. [1] ...Of the names of kings mentioned above, Vōśari appears to be a corruption of Vairisiṁha ; but below in v. 25 Vairisiṁha is also mentioned as the son of Vōśari, which again shows that the poet of the present inscription had no authentic document before him while composing the genealogical account, However, at this point the legendary account ends and the historical genealogy begins, which we may now deal with. Vairisiṁha, as we are told, was succeeded by Vākpatirāja, who pleased the people with sūktis (good sayings), (v. 26), and he by Sīyā (v.27), who, in his turn, was succeeded by Muñja, a warrior who was also renowned for his generosity (vv. 28-29). This account too is equally confusive. The composer of the record, besides his ignorance of the fact that Vākpati and Muñja were the two names borne by the same king, ascribes Muñja’s erudition to his predecessor Vākpati. Moreover, from his description it is not clearly known whether in the house there were one or two kings bearing the names of Vākpati and Sīyaka. ...The next king was Sidhurāja, who was fond of warlike activities and a poet as well (vv. 29-31). His relationship with his predecessor is not mentioned in the inscription, but we know him as a brother of Vākpatirāja-Muñja. Sindhurāja was succeeded by his son Bhōjadēva, whose description is all poetic (vv. 32-35). Thereafter, the inscription is silent on the whole of the unpleasant episode following Bhōja’s death, and merely states that then arose Udayāditya, who was the boar in relieving the earth (Paramāra kingdom) which had been drowned in the ocean of (in the form of) the Gurjara king (v. 36). This is evidently a reference to Udayāditya’s success in repulsing the attack of the Chaulukyas, in alliance with the Kalachuris, on Mālava, as we know from history. How Udayāditya was related to Bhōja is not stated in the inscription, but from the Ḍōṅgargāon inscription of the time of Jagaddēva, of Śaka 1034 or 1034 or 1112 A.C., we know him to have been the letter’s younger brother. [2] The name of Jayasiṁha, who was the immediate successor of Bhōja, is omitted in the present record, as in the others, for reason stated elsewhere.
... Then are mentioned the following rulers in turn : Udayāditya’s son Naravarman (vv. 37- 38), the latter’s son Yaśōvarman (v. 39), his son Ajayavarman (vv. 40-41), his son Vindhyavarman (v. 42), his son Subhaṭavarman (v. 43), and his son Arjunavarman (vv. 44-45). The descripttion of all these rulers is entirely in vague terms, though highly interesting from the poetical point of view. It is significant to note here, however, that Arjunavarman is stated to have been solely devoted to Kṛishṇa, We are further told that from Arjunavarman the throne passed on to Dēvapāla, whose relationship is again not mentioned ; but we have seen above, while dealing with the Harsūd and the Māndhātā inscriptions of V.S. 1275 (1218 A.C.) and V.S. 1282 (1225 A.C.) respectively, [3] that the latter of these princes was a son of Hariāschandra, who belonged to the branch line of the Paramāras, and also that with his accession, the main and the branch lines of the house were reunited.
...The inscription devotes three stanzas (vv. 46-48) to describe Dēvapāla. He is said to have
vanquished his enemies and firmly established dharma ; but the information furnished by the
last of these verses is historically important, telling us that he “by his sword, cut off into two
(the body of) the arrogant lord of the Mlēchchhas, in a battle fought near Bhillasvāmipura,”
which is Bhilsā, now known as Vidishā. This statement appears to have an allusion to the
invasion of the city of Bhilsā by Iltutmish, the Turkish Sultān of Delhi. We know from the
Muslim historians that this ruler subjugated the fort of Gwālior, in 632 A. H., or 1233-34 A.C.,
and soon after, advancing further in the south, he demolished the temple of Bhillasvāmin (at
Bhilsā).
[4]
But in view of the statement of the inscription under study, it would appear that
Dēvapāla succeeded in recapturing the fort at the city, which remained in the possession of
the Paramāras about half a century, till it was again snatched from them by the Khalji Sultāns
of Delhi.
[5]
The Mlēchchādhipa of the present inscription, in that case, would be no other
[1]
Sircar, op. cit., p. 140.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|