|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA ...Following this, we have an expression, viz. “in that family” (tasmin Kulē) ; but as the family is not mentioned here, I agree with the editors of the grants in holding that since the expression narēndrapādānāṁ cannot be construed with tasmin kulē, a portion mentioning the name of the family is obviously omitted here through oversight by the writer.[1] Then we have a metrical portion (vv.2-4) introducing three kings, viz., Bappaiparāja, Vairisiṁha and Sīyaka, the latter in each case being the son and successor of the former. The description of all these princes is quite conventional. The prose-portion that follows in 11. 8-22 tells us that the illustrious Sīyaka assembled all the officials and residents of these two and the neighbouring villages and in their presence announced the perpetual endowments, which were made at the instance of the ruler of the Khēṭaka-maṇḍala, modern Kairā in Gujarāt, for the enhancement of the religious merit and fame of his parents and his own self. ....Then follow the usual instructions to the inhabitants of the village (in each case) to offer to the donee and to his sons and son’s son, etc., in due succession, all the income as paid then, such as the shares (of the produce), royalties, taxes, and gold and so on. With two imprecatory verses followed by the date, the name of the dāpaka and of the writer, as already seen above, both the grants are concluded, with the sign-manual of the king Sīyaka, in the last line.
....Sīyaka of both the present inscriptions is evidently identical with his namesake, the father of Vākpati-Muñja, as we know from the latter’s Dharampurī, Ujjain and Gaōnri grants, issued respectively in V. 1031 (975 A.C.), 1036 (980 A.C.) and 1038 and 1043 (981 and 986 A.C.).[2] The first of these grants was issued 25 years later than the present records, which is just the period of one generation, as pointed out by the editors of these grants in the Ep Ind.; and that Sīyaka is also the same ruler for whom we have another date, viz. V. 1026, or 969 A.C. This shows that he held the throne at least from 949 to 969 A.C., which too is roughly a period of one generation. His father is stated to be Vairisiṁha, as also in the grants referred to above ; but whereas his grandfather’s name is mentioned as Vappaiparāja in the present inscription, it figures as Kṛishṇarāja in all the inscriptions of his son. The discrepancy in the names of the grandfather may be explained away by considering that both the names were borne by one and the same prince, as we know from a number of instances ; and there is no room for doubt that Bappairāja was the same as Vākpatirāja, the former being a Prākṛit equivalent from of the latter.[3] ...The grants were issued by Sīyaka from his encampment on the bank of the Māhī, on his
return from a successful expedition against Yōgarāja (1. 15), at the request of the ruler of Khēṭakamaṇḍala. This evidently shows that the place was in the possession of Sīyaka or adjoining to his
dominions, and we may also hold that Yōgarāja was an enemy of the Paramāra prince. The
identification of this adversary of Sīyaka is a vexed problem, but it is no doubt evident that his
principality was situated on the west of the river and his possession was in the territorial division
Khēṭaka where he was subdued. The history of this region of Gujarāt for this period is
shrouded in mystery, and until it is so, we have to agree with Dikshit who held that the Yōgarāja
of the present grants was either a chief of the Chāvḍā (Chāpōtkaṭa) dynasty of Anhilwāḍ-Pāṭan
or of the Chālukya dynasty of the southern part of Saurāshṭra Both these houses had then
acḳnowledged the overlordship of the Imperial Pratīhāra house of Kanauj, and the view that
Sīyaka, who was the feudatory of the Rāshṭrakūṭa house, may have led an expedition against either
of them seems to be quite justifiable.[4] [1] We do not know if the titles of Amōghavarsha and Akālavarsha were also borne by some of the predecessors
of Bappaiparāja, but from what is stated in the present grants, it appears to be possible that he had some
family tie with the Rāshṭrakūṭa house, probably on his mother’s side. See Ep. Ind., op. cit., pp.143-44
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|