|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA than the Muslim governor who might have been placed in charge of the fort when it was captured by Iltutmish. ...The document proceeds to state that Dēvapāla was succeeded by his son Jaitugidēva (v. 49), and the latter, by Jayavarman (v. 50), whose relationship with his predecessor is again not mentioned, but we know him to have been his younger brother. Jayavarman is stated to have firmly established dharma, which had waned in course of time ; and here a statement of the record goes to suggest that he was also known as Jayasiṁha (v. 51), which is really an important historical information, on which we shall comment later on. [1] Verse 52 is again historically important; it states, in a poetic way, that Jayasiṁha was both ¬–––a dauhitra (daughter’s son ) as well as a pautra (son’s son), so far as the succession in the Paramāra kingdom was concerned. From the latter of these statements, it would appear that Jayavarman’s father Dēvapāla, under whom both the branches of the royal Paramāra house are known to have united, succeeded Arjunavarman as his son-in-law ; this is a view which, if accepted, would dismiss the whole controversy regarding Dēvapāla’s accession to the throne of Dhārā, viz., whether he captured Dhārā by overthrowing Arjunavarman, or, was a natural successor of him, when he died without leaving a male heir. [2] Commenting on the above-mentioned statement of the record, Sircar has also observed : “If the stanza in question means to say that Jayasiṁha-Jayavarman claimed to be a dauhitra of Arjunavarman, Dēvapāla may be regarded as having succeeded Arjunavarman as the latter’s son-in-law and heir.” [3] ...Viewing the available evidence, I have no doubt in agreeing with Sircar in taking Jayasiṁha and Jayavarman as identical ; and the only way in which we can reconcile the statement of the stanza in question (No. 52) is, as already stated, that Arjunavarman may have given his daughter in marriage to Dēvapāla, and being without a son, later on may have nominated his son-in-law as his successor on the main throne. The two branches had been separated by some generations; and the question of sagōtra marriage too is out of consideration in this case ; for, though prohibited by some of the Śāstras, [4] it is allowed by some others, [5] as probably also by the custom of those days.
...
Verse 54 of the present record represents Jayavarman’s powerful army crossing the
Vindhyas in its victorious march, in which it put to flight the forces of his enemies in the south
(dākshiṇātya). The expression evidently refers to Jayavarman’s struggle with Yādavas of
Dēvagiri, who were his southern neighbours and the hereditary enemies of his house.
[6] On the
evidence of the Ṭhānā and the Udāri inscriptions, dated respectively in 1272 and 1276 A.C.,
Dr. Sircar is inclined to take this enemy of Jayavarman to have been the Yādava king RāmaChandra,
[7] who had ascended the throne only a couple of years earlier than the year of the
[1] The identification of Jayavarman with Jayasiṁha was also suggested, though casually, by D. R. Bhandarkar
in his Progress Report of A. S. I., W. C., 1912-13, p. 56. And the evidence of the present inscription goes in support of it. It may also be equally assumed, however, that being a younger son, Dēvapāla was perhaps given in adoption (as son-in-law) in the time of his father, and Udayavarman too may have died later, without a son ; and thus Dēvapāla succeeded to both his brother’s (Jaitugi’s) and adoptive father’s (i.e., Arjunavarman’s) throne.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|