North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF VAGADA

Maṇḍalēśa, by the king Chāmuṇḍarāja, in honour of his father Maṇḍanadēva and the endowments made in favour of that temple. The date recorded in the last line thereof, both in decimal figures and words, is Friday, the seventh day of the bright half the last Phālguna of the (Vikrama) year 1136, which, as calculated by Kielhorn, regularly corresponds to 31st January, 1080 A.C., when the 7th tithi of the bright half ended 20 h. 3 m. after mean sunrise. [1]

... Opening with a customary sentence paying obeisance to Śiva, the inscription has two maṅgala-ślōkas, the first of which invokes the blessings of Pārvatī and the second, that of Śiva. Then it has nine verses (3-11) to describe the Mount Arbuda (Ābū), the sage Vasishṭha engrossed in penance there, and the creation of a warrior by him from his sacrificial pit, to fight with the forces of Viśvāmitra who had stolen away his (Vasishṭha’s) cow. The myth of the creation of the race of the Paramāras is a later invention, as we have often noted, simply to glorify the family. The following three verse introduce Vairisiṁha, who is stated to have sprung in the that family in course of time; and then his younger brother Ḍambarasiṁha [2] is mentioned (vv. 15-16). In vv. 17-19 we are told that in his, i.e. Ḍambarasiṁha’s family (tasy= ānvayē) was born the illustrious Kaṅkadēva, who helped Harsha, the lord of Mālava, in his battle fought on the Narmadā, against the Karṇāṭas, had died a hero’s death. This is evidently a reference to the imperial king’s struggle with the Rāshṭrakūṭa, Khōṭṭiga, as we have seen in the immediately preceding record; and the Vāgaḍa king Kaṅkadēva is the same as Kakka of the preceding record, where he is stated to have been Dhanika’s nephew. But that the Mālava king is called Harsha here, as in the Udaipur praśasti, and Sīyaka in the Pānāhēḍā inscription of V.S. 1116 furnishes a further clear proof that both these rulers were identical. Kaṅkadēva’s son was Chaṇḍapa (vv. 20.21), and the latter’s son was Satyarāja (vv. 22-24). The description of the both these rulers is merely conventional. Satyarāja’s son was Maṇḍanadēva, the Maṇḍalīka of the Pānāhēḍā inscription, to whose description are devoted 21 verses, stating that he was handsome, righteous, strong, valorous and skilled in the art warfare. The name of his elder brother Limbarāja, as mentioned in the Pānāhēḍā record, is omitted here, probably because he was not in the direct line of descent.

... The following twenty verses (46-65) are devoted to extol Maṇḍanadēva’s son and successor Chāmuṇḍarāja, who is described almost on the same lines where it is also stated that he excelled the kāmadhēnu, chintāmaṇi and kalpa-vṛiksha. in his charities.

... Verse 55, which is of historical importance, states that Chāmuṇḍarāja, like Purushōttama, having churned (completely destroyed of vanquished) Sindhurāja (the king of Sindh in the form of an occan), with his sword resembling the Mandara mountain, obtained fortune (Lakshmī) and fame in the form of the world-purifying conch-shell. About the ruler of Sindh we know nothing; and the king mentioned here with the name Sindhurāja cannot be taken as the father of the well-known Bhōja, as he belonged to the imperial house of which Chāmuṇḍarāja was a feudatory and lived several years ago in the days of Maṇḍanadēva’s grandfather Chaṇḍapa. [3]

...The genealogical account is followed by the main object of the record, viz., showing the construction of the temple of Śiva, as seen above; and v. 67 that follows expresses that the shrine may stand as long as the moon and the snake are on the head of Śiva and the Kaustubha jewel, resembling the attachment of Lakshmī, is borne by Vishṇu. This laudatory account is supplemented by enumerating some imposts for the maintenance of the temple establishment, a list
_________________________________________

[1] There are two important points on the discussion of the date. The first has already been discussed above in n. 2, with reference to Barnett’s wrongly reading स(श)का समा.   And the second point is about the tithi which was read by him as 3, following Gopal Lal’s reading; but it would not correspond with Friday. The number of the tithi is in fact 7, as also read by Kielhorn in his notice of the inscription; and the seventh day of the month would fall on Friday. For details, see Ind. Ant., Vol. XXII, p. 80 and Ep. Ind., Vol. XIV, p. 297.
[2] The name was more likely डबरसिंह or डबरसिंह See n, on the corresponding portion of the text below.
[3] Nor can this Sindhurāja be the Chāhamāna ruler, the father of Lakshmaṇa, who is known from two inscription of V.S. 1024 and 1039 (I.N..I., Nos. 76 and 90). for taking him as on the throne for 25 years prior to V. 1024, he flourished about 140 years before Chāmuṇḍarāja.. One Sindhurāja is also known from No. 94, below, as the fifth ancestor of Dēvarāja, the originator of the Bhīnmal branch of the Paramāras, who flourished in the eleventh century, and thus much before the time of the present inscription.

Home Page