|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA which was king Bhōja, “and also states that he “put to flight the confederacy of Mālwā.” [1] From this it is evident that Bhōja was the aggressor, and this is confirmed by Mērutuṅga who in his Prabandhachintāmaṇi informs us that when Bhōja was planning to attack Gujarāt, he was, by a drama, remined of the end of Muñja and invaded the Chālukya kingdom. [2] In this attack he was ultimately defeated, as we know from the Chālukya inscription, but may have gained some initial success, which seems to be referred to in the inscription under study. ...Bhōja’s contemporaries on the Chaulukya throne of Gujarāt were Chāmuṇḍarāja (995-1009 A. C.), his son Durlabharāja (1009-1022 A. C.) and the latter’s son Bhīma (1022-64 A.C.). It is well known that Bhōja had humiliated Chāmuṇḍarāja to give up his royal robes while passing through Mālwā to Vārāṇasī and the latter’s son Durlabharāja maintained a hostile attitude towards him. Most probably it is this incident that is referred to in the present record. We also know that Bhīma later on invaded Mālwā, in confederacy with the Kalachuri Karṇa ; but this happened in the last days of Bhōja and it cannot find place in the present inscription, particularly when Bhōja’s kingdom had to suffer a reverse. What we have concluded here can be reconciled with the writings of Mērutuṅga, who tells us that while Bhīma was engaged in the conquest of Sindh, Bhōja’s sent an army against Anhilwāḍ and the town was taken [3] Hēmachandra’s silence over the defeat of the Gurjaras is quite natural as he was a court-poet of the Gurjara throne. ...As to the defeat of the Chēdis by Bhōja, we have no definite evidence except that the Kalachuri Yuvarāja II was vanquished by Vākpati-Muñja some time in the last quarter of the tenth century ; and this feud may have again broken up as it is also referred to in the Udaipur praśasti. But this description is merely poetic and the incident can hardly have reference to the Chaulukya-Kalachuri confederacy for the reason stated above.
...We know that Lāṭa or Southern Gujarāt had suffered a reverse at the hands of Sīyaka, Vākpati II and Sindhurāja. Bhōja’s contemporary on the throne of Lāṭa was Kīrttirāja (1018 A.C.), grandson of Bārappā. We have no definite evidence in support of the statement, but it is not improbable that in his western expedition Bhōja may have come into a clash with Kīrtirāja’s army, though it was not a regular contest so as to leave any permanent effect. ...The inscription also refers to Bhōja’s conquest of Kōṅkaṇa, which is evidently the same as referred to in the Bēṭmā and Bāṅswāḍā copper-plate grants of V.S. 1076 or 1020 A.C., which is almost the time of Jayasiṁha Chālukya’s inscription referred to above. It would thus appear that Bhōja’s struggle with all his enemies mentioned in the present record has reference to his warfare effected during the time between the Bēṭmā and Bānswāḍā grants and that of Jayasiṁha at whose hands he had to suffer a reverse. At any rate, it may be taken to have been much before Bhōja’s last days when he had to suffer a reverse at the hands of most of his enemies . Incidently it may also be noted here that Bhōja’s warefare with all these enemies and some others is also mentioned in the Udaipur i edited below.
...Editing this inscription in the Ep. Ind., Banerji observes that “the very fact that an
ordinary feudatory chief dares to make a grant of land without referring the matter to his sovereign
shows that the power of the Paramāras of Mālwā had weakened considerably at the time of the
issue of the grant’’,
[4]
But are we to follow the same line of thought and conclude that the
Paramāra power was on its wane in about 1011 A.C. and also in 1046 A.C. when the Mōḍāsā
and the Tilakawāḍā grants were respectively issued by the others of his feudatories? Both these
inscriptions too do not contain a word about the imperial king. On the other hand, if Bhōja’s
conquest of Kōṅkaṇa is to be placed some time between 1018 and 1020 A.C., the former being
the year of his Mahauḍī grant which does not mention this achievement and the latter of those
found at Bēṭmā and Bāṅswāḍā which are explicit on the point, it is obvious that his power was
then rather increasing ; and knowing from history that he had to suffer only towards the end
of his rule in the combined attack on his kingdom by the Chaulukyas and the Kalachuris and
some time before, at the hands of the Chālukyas, it is difficult to agree with Banerji in his conclusion. Thus the present grant appears to have been issued much earlier than the disaster
of the Paramāra kingdom which has already been discussed above.
[1] Ind. Ant., Vol. V,p. 17.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|