North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

aksharas are preserved. Stanzas 10-11 mention the names of Jējā and Vijā, evidently the Prakrit forms of Jayaśakti and Vijayaśakti, who were brothers.

The next name we have in the record is that of Dhaṅga, in stanza 17, and the names of three of his predecessors─Rāhila, Harsha and Yaśōvarman may have figured in stanzas 12-13 which are only partially preserved, the extant portions describing them all to be valorous, is a poetic way. Dhaṅga, as we are told here, destroyed his adversaries, and, by the strength of his arms, equalled (lit. weighed) even the powerful Hamvīra who was ‘a heavy burden for the earth’. The identification of Haṁvīra or Hammīra and Dhaṅga weighing him with his arm have been discussed above while dealing with the Khajurāhō inscription of Yaśōvarman of V.S. 1011 (No. 98, above), where we have also seen that this powerful enemy was none else than Sabuktigīn (977-997 A.C.), against whom the king of Kālañjara (who was on other than Dhaṅga himself) helped Jayapāla with troops and money, according to the report of Firishta.

Stanza 18, which is again incomplete, appears to have a reference to Dhaṅga ; and the following verse, of which the first half is fortunately complete, mentions his son Gaṇḍa, “an ornament of the earth and an unrivalled hero,” the ladies of whose enemies, as we are told in a poetic way of expression, “used to resort to the forest.” Referring to the description of Gaṇḍa, Hultzsch accepted Cunningham’s identification of this ruler with Nandā, the king of Kālañjar, who, according to Firishta, Nizamuddīn, and others, was twice attacked by Mahmūd in 1021 and 1023 A.C.¹ But from Ibn Asīr, who mentions Mahmūd’s enemy as Bīdā and adds that he was the greatest of the rulers of India in the territory around Khajurāhō and had the largest army,² it is now definitely known that the Sultān launched his campaign not against Gaṇḍa but his son Vidyādhara (Bīdā).

Stanzas 21-22 state that from him, that is from Gaṇḍa, was born Vidyādhara, who snatched from his enemies the flower of fame and who brought about the destruction of the king of Kānyakubja ; and who, a master of warfare, was worshipped by Bhōjadēva, together with the moon of the kalachuris (kalachuri-chandra) who were full of fear, on his throne.³

The Bhōjadēva referred to here is evidently the Paramāra Bhōja (c. 1000-1050 A.C.) and the Kalachuri king is either Kōkalla who ascended the throne some time before 998 A.C., or his son by whom he was followed some time before 1019 A.C.; Mm. V. V. Mirashi takes him to be the latter.⁴ All the three names have a reference to Vidyādhara’s assasination of the Pratīhāra king Rājyapāla of Kanauj for the latter’s surrender to Sultan Mahmūd of Ghaznī, as seen above.

This chivalrous feat must naturally have made Vidyādhara a conspicuous figure among the contemporary king’s and it was natural for the Paramāra and the Kalachuri kings to hold him in high honour

Stanza 23 mentions Vidyādhara’s successor Vijayapāla, “whose conquest of the quarters, as we are told in it, was checked (only) by the ocean ;” and the following stanza states that “perceiving this terrible (adversary) before himself, (even) the lotus of the heart of Gāṅgēyadēva closed its knot of pride in battle”. While editing the inscription, Hultzsch thought that this expression means nothing more than that the two rulers were contemporaries, but we have now definite evidence to show that the eastern portion of the former kingdom of Kanauj, around Vārāṇasī, which was included in the Chandēlla kingdom under Dhaṅga, as we know from his Nanyaurā grant, dated V.S. 1055, had been subsequently captured by Gāngeyā,⁵ of course, definitely at the time when the present record was put to stone.

What is preserved of the last of the verses (stanza 25) is only the name of Vijayapāla’s successor Kīrttivarman,⁶ who in the next verse is described “to have acquired (royal) fortune just as Purushōttama (Vishṇu) had obtained Lakshmī by churning by his mountain-like strong arms the stormful ocean in the form of Lakshmīkarṇa, who had ‘swallowed several kings (mountains)”. Lakshmīkarṇa is no doubt identical with the Kalachuri Karṇa (1041-1073 A.C.) who is known to have attained remarkable success in the east, south and west, and was thus
______________________
¹ See Ep Ind. Vol, p. 219.
² Kāmil-i-Tawārīkh, Vol. IX, pp. 115 ff.
³ The expression talpabhājaṁ, as rendered by Hultzsch by ‘who was lying on a coach’ (E. I., I. p. 219) is not at all appropriate here.
⁴ C. I. I., Vol. IV, p. Ixxxix, and notes 2-3.
⁵ For details, see C. I. I., Vol. IV, p. xci; H. K., p. 295.
⁶ The name of Dēvavarman is omitted here because he was a collateral.