INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA
information supplied by the present inscription is that Jayasiṁhadēva was the successor of Bhōjadēva, without specifying the relationship between the two rulers.
...In every particular, the way of the description in the present record is as be found in the
grants of Bhōjadēva, edited above ; and the arrangement of its contents is also similar, viz. in
mentioning the name of the village granted, an address to its inhabitants and royal officials,
the motive of the grant, the name of the donee and finally, the usual exhortations to the succeeding rulers and the date. But, as seen above, it does not specify the relationship existing
between these two rulers. The name of Jayasiṁha is not known from any other inscription of
the house-not even from the Udaipur and Nagpur praśastis which give an almost complete
list of kings ruling at Dhārā up to the time when they were engraved.
[1]
On the other hand,
Bhōjadēva is generally taken to have been succeeded by Udayāditya who is now definitely
known to be his brother. But the present record, which mentions Jayasiṁha as the immediate
successor of Bhōjadēva and the evidence of which cannot be doubted for any reason, definitely
shows that Jayasiṁha must be placed between Bhōjadēva and Udayāditya and thus between
1047 and 1080 A.C. which are respectively the latest and the earliest known years of these two
rulers.
...In view of the information furnished by the present inscription, we may also hold that it
was Jayasiṁha who put an end to the troubles befalling on the Paramāra kingdom on account
of the simultaneous attack of the Kalachuri Karṇa (c. 1041-1072 A.C.) and the Chaulukya Bhīma I
(1022-1064 A.C.), when Bhōjadēva is known to have died.
[2]
Jayasiṁha, for whom it was difficult to resist the combined attack of two mighty foes, solicited the aid of the powerful Chālukya
king Sōmēśvara I (1043-1068 A.C.) on this occasion. Sōmēśvara sent his son Vikramāditya VI
to help Jayasiṁha and the former turned back the invaders and secured the throne for the
latter, breaking the confederacy. karṇa’s invasion of Mālava which is graphically described in
the Nagpur museum stone inscription and which was reverted by Udayāditya,
[3]
was thus, in fact,
his second attack some fifteen years later. That Karṇa undertook two invasions –the first
when Bhōja died and the second, about fifteen years later when Udayāditya saved the country, is
well shown by Dr. V.V. Mirashi while editing the Ḍōṅgargāon inscription dated Śaka 1934 or
1112 A.C.
[4]
...As for the localities mentioned in the inscription, Amarēśvara (1. 14) is undoubtedly the
holy place of pilgrimage retaining its name even today and situated in the close proximity of
Māndhātā. The place has been referred to also in some other grants of the Paramāras. As for
the maṇḍala of Pūrṇapathaka, D.C. Ganguly has suggested that province bounded
by the Pūrṇā river which is a tributary of the Tāptī ;
[5]
but as far as I think, all the places mentioned
in this inscription must be sought in the same locality, whereas the provinces bounded by the
Pūrṇā which is a southern tributary of Tāptī is away from Amarēśvara ; therefore I am inclined
to take Pūrṇapathaka as probably represented by the modern Poonāsā, a big village straight about
30 kms. south-east of Amarēśvara. Maktulā, in which the gift-village was situated (1.6) is perhaps
identical with the place now known as Mathēlā and situated about 12 kms. south of
Māndhātā. The village Bhīma (1. 7) appears to have been represented by the modern Bhīmpurā, a little distance east of Godurpur and on the south bank of the Narmadā.
TEXT
[6]
[Metres: Verses 1, 2, 4, 5 Anushtubh(Ślōka); vv.3, 7 Vasantatilakā ;
v. 6 Indravajrā ; v.8 śālinī ; v. 9 Pushpitāgrā].
First Plate
1श्र्पों
[7]
[॥*]जयति व्योमकेशोसौ यस्सर्ग्गाय वि(बि)भर्त्ति तां(ताम्) । ऎन्दवीं सि(शि)रसा लेखांजगद्वी(द्वी)जां- ______________________________________
In op. cit. Kielhorn drew our attention to Lassen’s Indische Alterthumskunde, Vol. III, pp. 855 and 1168-69, for
the king Jayachandra or Jayānanda, who is reported to have ruled after Bhōjadēva. Nothing can be definitely
said in this respect.
See Ep. Ind., Vol. XXIV, pp. 101 ff. and also Mērutuṅga’s Prabandhachintāmaṇi , trans. by Tawney, pp. 74 ff.
See below, No. 33, V. 32.
Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVI, p. 179.
H.P.D.,p. 124.
From facsimiles facing p. 50 in Ep. Ind., Vol. III.
Denoted by a symbol.
|