North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

regarded to be the Indian Napoleon ; and the defeat of such a powerful adversary was indeed a marvellous achievement. This event is also referred to in a general way in the Deogaḍh inscription¹ and is described at length in the Prabōdhachandrōdaya, a drama written by Kṛishṇa Mishra some time between 1050 and 1116 A.C.² The work in its prologue states that Kīrttivarman’s general Gōpāla vanquished Karṇa, the Lord of the Chēdi country, and again placed his master over the throne. A lengthy Sanskrit passage of the drama again says that “Gōpāla, having crushed the ocean-like army of Karṇa, obtained the splendour of victory in battle, just as Madhumathana (Vishṇu), having crushed the milky ocean obtained the goddess Lakshmī. The way of description is exactly similar to that of the present inscription which also uses the same simile, probably with the drama before its poet. It is therefore clearly visible that the same event is referred to in both the works, viz., the drama and the present inscription.

The expression pītādri-gataṁ used in v. 8 of the preceding inscription, which is undated but which also belongs to the reign of Kīrttivarman, enables us to solve the problem, in view of the situated of this mountain in Bundelkhand (in the present Tīkamgaḍh District).³ In the Rēwā stone inscription of 1060-1061 A.C. Karṇa’s general Vappulla is reported to have vanquished one Trilōchana, whose details are not mentioned in it, at the fort of the Yellow mountain (pīta-parvata-talē);⁴ and the mention of this place where the encounter took place goes to suggest that in all probability it is the same Kalachuri-Chandēlla contest which is referred to in the Prabōdhachandrōdaya on the one hand and the present inscription on the other ; and in view of this, Trilōchana about whom nothing is known from the record and who is diversely identified by scholars⁵ appears to have been a Chandēllas general (under Dēvavarman) who was overthrown by Vappulla some time before 1061-1062 A.C., which is the year of the aforementioned Rēwā stone inscription. If this view is accepted, the date of the newly-discovered Darbat image inscription⁶ may further help us in ascertaining the time of the Chandēlla-Kalachuri contest. The latest known date of Dēvavarman is 1051 A.C. when he issued the Charkhārī grant ; and he may have been exterminated⁷ between this year and that of the Rēwā stone inscription, i.e., 1061-1062 A.C., and the kingdom, which had terribly suffered with his death, appears to have been recovered by his brother Kīrttivarman some time before 1075 A.C., the year of the Darbat inscription which mentions him as the ruling prince.

Combining all these evidences we may also hold that though the main credit of exterminating the Kalachuri forces goes to Kīrttivarman’s Brāhmaṇa general Gōpāla, the valient Chandēlla Chief Minister, Mahīdhara, also appears to have participated in the general rising and wrested from the enemy the region around Bētwā, and the Kāyastha Mahēśvara also participated in this stupendous task, as applied by the Ajayagarḥ inscription, stating in v. 8 that he rendered help to Kīrttivarman when the latter was in distress at Pītādri.

The next two verses (stanzas 27-28) of the inscription are again devoted to the extolment of Kīrttivarman’s bravery in the usual way and telling us that he was a brave and warlike prince. And after this, we have the expression āsīt tadīya-tanayō- (his son was ……..). The remainder of the inscription is lost. This one of Kīrttivarman, as we know from the inscriptions of the house, was Sallakshaṇavarman

Though it is a hazardous statement to make, it appears that the inscription probably included one or two names more ; and the lost portion also contained the date and the purpose of the record.

No geographical name figures in our inscription.

________________________
¹ Above, No. 7 vv. 3 and 6.
² Calcutta edn., p. 6; also see ibid.,, pp. 5, 7 and 8. For the date of the drama, see ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, p. 204. As observed by Hultzsch, the historical importance of this verse was first recognised by General Cunningham in his A. S. I. R., Vol. II. p. 453 and ibid., Vol. IX, p. 108.
³ Ep. Ind., Vol. XXX, p. 89.
⁴ C. I. I., Vol. IV, p. 282, v. 10.
⁵ R. D. Banerji took him to be a descendant of Bārappa of the Chālukya dynasty, and V. V. Mirashi is inclined to told that he was a Gurjara-Pratīhāra. For both the views see C. I. I. Vol. IV, pp. 280-81.
⁶ Above, No. 109.
⁷ The V. D. Ch. (Canto XVIII, v. 93) describes Karṇa as the death of the lord of Kālañjara, who thus appears to be Dēvavarman and not Kīrttivarman as held by Smith in Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXVII. p. 127.