|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA to be Sāhavāhana and as a reward he was enjoying the grant of the feudatory rulership over saṁgamakhēṭaka-Maṇḍala which was continued in favour of his son Jasōrāja. ...For want of sufficient data it is not possible to be sure about this opponent of Bhōjadēva, though Diskalkar, in his note referred to above, would have us believe that Sāhavāhana no doubt stands for the word Chāhamāna, as the change of sa to cha and va to ma is common. [1] Maintaining that the Chāhamānas of Nāḍōl were hereditary enemies of the Paramāras, and enumerating, among others, the instance of the Chāhamāna Aṇahilla who killed Bhōja’s general Sāḍha, the same scholar holds that Bhōja might have waged a war with the Chāhamāna king and defeated him with the help of sūrāditya of our inscription. But it is difficult to agree with him ; for, besides the fact that there is nothing to support Bhōja’s invasion of Alhana’s kingdom after Sāḍha was killed, we find no philological connection between the two words Sāhavāhana and Chāhamāna, as suggested by him. The suggestion of the use of vāhana for māna can hardly be justified. However, it may not be impossible that the word Sāhavāhana, which appears to be the same as Sātavāhana [2] may have been used by the composer of the inscription in its general significance to denote the southerners ; and this at once brings to our mind the Western Chālukyas who were then ruling over the Deccan as successors of the Sātavāhanas and who are known to have been the hereditary enemies of the Paramāras. Following this line of thought it is not impossible to hold that this allusion may have a reference to Bhōja’s war with the Chālukya Jayasiṁha, who is represented in one of his inscriptions as ‘’the moon of the lotus which was king Bhōja’’ [3] , or it may refer to Bhōja’s conquest of Kōṅkaṇa as referred to in his Bēṭmā and Bāṅswāḍā grants, as seen above. But owing to the absence of any reliable source of information, the precise significance of the term Sāhavāhana cannot be definitely known. It is, however, certain that Bhōja succeeded in extending the southern boundaries of his kingdom. ...The other enemies who are not mentioned in the inscription by name against whom Śūrāditya is stated to have helped Bhōja in his wars may have been the Chaulukyas of Gujarāt and Lāṭa, and the Chāhamānas of Nāḍōl and śākambharī and such others with whom the latter was engaged in long-drawn contests
...From the inscription we also know that śūrāditya belonged to the family of the Śravaṇabhadras and was a native of Kānyakubja. The Gaonrī grant of Vākpati Muñja mentions two Brāhmaṇa donees (No. 6, 11. 28 and 39) hailing from this locality which may have been in Uttar Pradesh, as the present grant establishes some relation between the Śravaṇabhadrs and that region. It is also likely that like that the Brāhmaṇa donees just referred to, Śūrāditya may have belonged to a Brāhmaṇa family [4] hailing from Kānyakubja and settled in Gujarāt, like many others doing the same from the age of the Pratīhāras of Kanauj who were sovereign lords of Gujarāt for some time. [5] ...It is also stated in the record in 11. 8-9 that at the time when the grant was made, Sūrāditya’s father Jasōrāja (Yaśōrāja) had retired and was leading a religious life on the banks of the Narmadā in the Sānkhēḍā tālukā, probably at Tilakwāḍā itself. This account is followed by the details of the grant, as stated above. Then there are six of the customary imprecatory verses, which are followed by one verse giving the name of the composer and some other details about him, and another, with a request to excuse him for the mistakes that may have occurred in the composition ; and finally, with the usual expression maṁgalaṁ mahā-śrīḥ the inscription is brought to an end.
Of the geographical names occurring in the inscription, some of them have already been
identified above. Thus Kānyakubja (1. 3) is Kanauj, Saṅgamakhēṭaka (1. 7) is Sānkhēḍā and
Manā (1. 12) is the modern Māna, a small stream which flows into the Narmadā. Ghaṇṭāpalli (1.13) is identified by Kudalkar with the modern village of Ghaṇṭōlī, which is a station on the
Gayakwad’s Motipura-Tankhātā railway line. He also informed us (in 1919 when he wrote)
that the remains of the temple known as Ghaṇṭēśvara are still (were then) to be seen there. The
gift village Viluhaja suggests its identification with Velpur, which is about 3 kms. from Ghaṇṭōlī.
About Śravaṇabhadra, we have said enough in the foregoing paragraphs. [1]Ep. Ind.,XXI, p. 159.
.........................CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|