|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI Kielhorn, corresponds to 12th January, 1134 A.C.; but it was a Friday and not a Monday, and thus the date is irregular.[1] The importance of the inscription under study lies in the fact that it furnishes an undoubted evidence regarding Madanavarman’s political relations with his neighbouring powers in the south and south-west. The grant was issued by him from his camp in the vicinity of Bhāïlasvāmin, which has been identified with the town of Bhilsā (modern Vidishā) ; from his camp at that place in 1134 A.C. when he donated the land may be interpreted in the terms of his leading an aggressive campaign against his adversary in that direction, who can be no other than the contemporary Paramāra king of Mālava. The history of the royal Paramāra house shows that subsequent to the death of the great king Bhōjadēva in c. 1055 A.C., his successors were incessantly in troubles and their military resources were almost exhausted by protracted warfare with their enemies amongst whom the Chaulukyas of Gujarāt were a source of constant menace ; and though Bhōja’s brother Udayāditya (c. 1080-1094 A.C.) had succeeded reviving the glory of the house, the latter’s son Naravarman (c. 1094-1133 A.C.) and his son Yaśōvarman (c. 1133-1142 A.C.) suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the Chaulukya king Jayasiṁha Siddharāja (c. 1094- 1142 A.C.), who is known to have annexed the kingdom of Mālwā.[2] And the year of the present inscription, that is 1134 A.C., which was incidently the first regnal year of the Paramāra Yaśōvarman also, tends to show that Madanavarman had definitely extended his dominions further in the south, gaining victory over the Paramāra king who was then hard-pressed.
The expressions of the Khajurāhō inscription viz., that Dhaṅgadēva was like a death to the Mālavas and that his kingdom in the west extended so far as Vidishā on the Mālava-nadī,[3] are only of a general type ; and of equally indefinite nature is the account of the victory of Kīrttivarman’s general Vatsarāja who claims to have constructed the fort of Kīrttidurga in the Bētwā region.[4] The statement of the Ajaygaḍh rock inscription of V.S. 1317 about Sallakshaṇavarman, that he took away the fortune of the Mālavas,[5] is also not explicit on the point and what is more is that it is a later report ; and hence the record under notice which definitely shows Madanavarman’s sway over a part of the Bētwā valley near Vidishā is of great significance. It may also be noted here that the present charter was issued about 82 years after V.S. 1108, the year when Dēvavarman issued his Charkhārī grant. And the absence of any copper-plate issued during this long period by the Chandēlla house may be explained by supposing that either we have not so far found them or they were not at all issued, as the rulers were constantly busy establishing peace and order in the State from the time of Kīrttivarman who revived the glory of the house which had been eclipsed by the Kalachuris, as already seen above.
Of the geographical name occurring in the present grant, the place where the deity locally
known as Bhilla-svāmin was worshipped is evidently the modern town of Bhilsā or Vidishā, and
the vishaya Sūdali was the region close to it. The modern name of this place I am unable to
find out ; and I am also unable to identify the villages Raṇasuvā and Bijaulī mentioned in the
record. Since the donation was made by Madanavarman from his camp near Bhāïlasvāmin, i.e.,
Bhilsā (modern Vidishā), as we are informed by the inscription, the places occurring in it are
to be looked into in the area lying to the east of this town. A village of the name of Bamhari
exists about 8 kms. north by east of the Binā Station (near Jhānsī), with another village known as
Kamarkheḍī to its south. The names of both these villages suggest their identification respectively with Bamhaṇauḍā and Kamhaṇauḍā mentioned in the present inscription. Both these
1 This is what Kielhorn observed while editing the inscription in the Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, on p. 202.
And finding the date to be irregular, he also calculated the details with the month Mārgga, i.e., Mārga-
śīrsha (for Māgha) when he concluded that the date works out satisfactorily not for 1190 but for 1192, expired, when it was a Monday. See ibid., Vol. XIX, pp. 368 f., No. 187. But the facsimile published
with his edition of the inscription shows that the second akshara of the month is not gga but gha, in
two instances side by side, in l. 11. My own calculations for the Southern Vikrama, expired, shows the
equivalent as 22nd January, 1133 A.C., falling not on Monday, as stated, but on Sunday. A satisfact-
ory solution of this irregularity may perhaps be sought in presuming that though the Purṇimā really
occurred on Sunday, but the donation made or desired to be made on that day was registered the
next day (Monday). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
