The Indian Analyst

North Indian Inscriptions







List of Plates



Inscriptions of the Chandellas of Jejakabhukti

An Inscription of the Dynasty of Vijayapala

Inscriptions of the Yajvapalas of Narwar



Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27





Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India



Vakpati who was their father. The name of Rahila, the son of Vijayasakti is again lost in ll. 6-7, which describe him as “vanquishing the haughty enemies by the prowess of his arms.” Rahila’s son was Harshadeva, whose name appears in l. 7 ; and the description of him in ll. 8-9, which obviously refers to his fame and valour as conquering the earth up to the ocean, is all conventional.

   The next line, which preserves only a foot of a verse which is otherwise completely lost, informs in that “he (a ruler whose name is not preserved) again (punar =) placed Kshitipāladēva on the throne”. The latter of these rulers has of course been unanimously taken to be the imperial Pratīhāra monarch, Mahīpāla,[1] and as for the former, Kielhorn has shown good grounds to identify him with the Chandēlla king Harshadēva and not his son Yaśōvarman, as was conjectured by Hoernle.[2] R. S. Tripathi has also given cogent reasons for taking this ruler to be Harshadēva.[3] Thus the incident appears to have an obvious reference to the long-drawn hostility between the two great powers of the North and the South India, viz., the Pratīhāras and the Rāshṭrakūṭas, culminating in the sensational achievement of Indra III (914-927 A.C.) in capturing, Kanauj,[4] some time between 915 and 918 A.C., and the subsequent recovery of the throne by Mahīpāla, soon after the retreat of the enemical forces whose main interest was in the south.[5]


   On the other hand, however, there is a set of scholars who urge that the incident when Harsha rendered help to Mahīpāla has a reference not to the latter’s restoration after the field was left by the Rāshṭrakūṭas but to his very accession by defeating his rival and half-brother, Bhōja II, who, after the death of his father, Mahēndrapāla, succeeded in obtaining the throne with the help of the Kalachuri king Kōkalla I.[6] R. S. Tripathi, who belongs to this set, goes so far as to suggest that the word “punaḥ” of the verse under reference should be taken not to mean “again” but in the sense of “introducing further details about the achievements of the Chandēlla ruler.”[7] But this suggestion, though ingenious, is not corroborate by any other source, and there is no positive evidence to establish that there was actually a war between the two brothers.

   Whatever may have been the fact, it is doubtless that the help rendered by the Chandēlla king to his Imperial overlord speaks highly of a valorous feat which increased the prestige of the latter’s house.

   What remains of the inscription makes it fairly clear that it was a very important record throwing light on the Chandēlla ruling house, and its loss is indeed greatly felt.

No geographical name occurs in the portion now available.


[1] The words kshiti and mahī are synonymous. Cunningham was disposed to regard Kshitipāladēva as a son of Harshadēva and thus an elder brother of Yaśōvarman, but as pointed out by Kielhorn, there is nothing in support of this view in the fragment. His conjecture, however, that Harshadēva first defeated and subsequently re-instated Kshitipāla in the government of his dominions (op. cit., p. 122) is baseless.
[2] See J. R. A. S., 1904, p. 654.
[3] H. K., p. 257, n. 1. Some hold this view doubtful, for which, see C. I. I., Vol. IV, p. Ixxv.
[4] A. I. K., p. 13; R. T. T., p. 102.
[5] A. I. K., pp. 35 f.
[6] See R. T. T., p. 101; H. K., pp. 255 ff; R. D. Banerji, Haihayas of Tripuri, etc., p. 4. This theory is based on the mention of the dubious name
Bhōja, without any details, in a Kalachuri grant (C. I. I.,) Vol. IV, No. 48, v. 7). According to Tripathi and others, he was Bhōja II of the
Pratīhāra dynasty. But if we take him to have been the first ruler of the name, the whole theory falls flat on the ground.
[7] See n. 3, above.
[8] From plate XVI-B in Cunningham’s A. S. I. R., Vol. XXI.
[9] Metre : Anushṭubh. Kielhorn read the last of the bracketed aksharas as (Sanskrit), but the plate does not show the consonant of the letter as
[10] Metre : Śārdūlavikrīḍita. For the sake of the metre, the letter raṁ has to be read as separate from the following one.

Home Page