INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF VAGADA
ARTHŪṆĀ STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF VIJAYARĀJA
shows a floral design around. Such flourishes are occasionally also to be seen in some other
instances, e.g., in the medial ā in dhṛitīnāṁ, 1. 9, and in ṇyā of paṇyāṅganā, 1. 3, where it is shown
by a curve above the top, unlike in any other instance. There are also instances, though rare,
showing the punctuation marks so close to a letter as to make them appear as the sign of medial
ā, as after shōḍaśa, 1. 12. Wrong chisel strokes have occasionally changed the form of some of the
letters, e.g., y has become ch in yo’vanti, 1. 2, and t has become g in vitata, 1. 3.
...
In respect of orthography, the record shares the same peculiarities as to be seen in contemporary inscriptions, viz. (1) the general use of the sign for v to denote b also, as in vuddhi-, 1.12 (2) doubling of a class-consonant following r; see kīrtti, 1. 2; (3) the use of the dental sibilant
for the palatal and vice versa; e.g., in sāsana, 1. 15, and śalila,- 1. 31; (4) use of both , viz, the
pṛishṭha- and the ūrdhva-mātrā; (5) putting the sign for avagraha in 1. 3 and for jihvāmūlīya in
1.29; (6) representation of a class-nasal by anusvāra, even though wrongly at the end of a stich,
perhaps the singular exception being in sundarīkaṁ, 1. 4; (7) occasional use of anusvāra and a
class-nasal side by side, as in 1. 4; and (8) frequent violation of the rules of sandhi, as noted in
the text, below.
...It is a secterian record; and its object is to state the foundation of a Jaina temple and the
consecration of the image of Vṛishabhanātha, at Utthūṇaka, obviously the village of Arthūṇā, in
the province of Sthalī, i.e., Vāgaḍa, by one Bhūshaṇa, whose lineage is shown below, during the
reign of Vijayarāja, son of Chāmuṇḍarāja and grandson of Maṇḍalika of the Paramāra family.
The date, as given both in words and figures in 1. 22, is Monday, the 3rd of the bright half of
Vaiśākha of the Vikrama year 1166. which regularly corresponds, for the Chaitrādi expired
year, to the 5th of April, 1109 A.C. It was akshaya-tṛitīyā, a holy day, though not mentioned
in the inscription.
...
Commencing with a short sentence paying homage to Vītarāga, the inscription has one
verse to eulogise the same deity. It them speaks of Maṇḍalika, who born in the Paramāra lineage and who killed the general Kanha and Sindhurāja. Maṇḍalīka’s son was Chāmuṇḍarāja, who is said to have destroyed the army of the lord of Avantī in the Sthalī country (v. 2).
This statement obviously refers to a king belonging to the Paramāra house of Mālava, and the
details in this respect, though unknown, may of course be conjectured. From the Pānāhēḍā
inscription dated V. 116, we know that Maṇḍalīka, the ruler of Vāgaḍa was greatly devoted to
Jayasiṁha, the immediate successor of Bhōja. Presuming that the same policy may have been
followed by his son Chāmuṇḍarāja, he too may have helped Jayasiṁha by destroying some of
the forces of the latter’s adversary Udayāditya or some other person who was then struggling
against Jayasiṁha, and also possibly some others, for the throne. H.C. Ray suggested that the
king of Avanti was probably the Chaulukya Jayasiṁha Siddharāja who conquered Mālava
and assumed the title of Avantinātha. See D.H.N.I., Vol. II, p. 923, n. 4.
... The next verse introduces Chāmuṇḍarāja’s son Vijayarāja, who was a meritorious and
valorous person. The names of these three kings with their relationship to each other are
also known from the other records of the house ;[1]
but it is interesting to note that whereas the
present document says that Maṇḍalīka killed the general Kanha, the Pānāhēḍā record of
V.S. 1136 says that Sindhurāja was captured or vanquished not by Maṇḍalīka but by his son
Chāmuṇḍarāja (v. 55). Thus the facts mentioned in the present inscription do not agree with
those stated in both these records ; but as they are earlier, their testimony is more reliable,
particularly when the inscription under review is sectarian.[2]
...
While editing the Arthūṇā inscription of V.S. 1136, we have seen that the word Sindhurāja is used in it in a general sense of a ruler of Sindh, about whom nothing is known. And
in view of the statement recorded in the present inscription, it is possible that the Sindhurāja
who was killed by Maṇḍalīka may have been altogether a different ruler than the one who
was made captive by Chāmuṇḍarāja. But we cannot be definite on this point unless more
information is available.
____________________
The Pānāhēḍā and Arthūṇā inscriptions (S. 1136) ; Nos. 83 and 84, above.
To reconcile the statements of both these records, however, it appears possible that Chāmuṇḍarāja, as
a prince, may have helped his father in the latter’s struggle with Sindhurāja.
|