North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE YAJVAPALAS OF NARWAR

And though there is nothing to verify the suggestion, it is possible to hold, in view of the close proximity of both the places, namely Narwar and Raṇathambhōr, that Nṛivarman (the Yajvapāla prince), who was the eastern neighbour of Hammīradēva, may have sided Hammīra in the latter’s expedition over Mālwā. But while making this suggestion, we have to presume that Nṛivarman, who predeceased his father Chāhaḍa, may have participated in the struggle, referred to above, as a prince, during the reign of his father.

   The latter half of verse five fives the names of three persons, namely, Skanda, Chandra and Parita, who may have been, as pointed out by Sircar, while editing the inscription, the Yajvapāla generals who helped Nṛivarman in his encounter with the king of Dhara.

   The next verse introduces Nṛivarman’s son, Āsalladēva, the first akshara of whose name is mutilated. Verse 9 of the record informs us that Āsalla’s queen was Savana.^[1]

   The remaining portion of the inscription is devoted to the description of a family of the Māthura Kāyasthas, hailing from Gōpagiri, i.e., Gwālior. The first of the names introduced here is Śyāma, who is stated to have been meritorious and resembling a banyan tree (of course, in giving shade and protection). The next member in this family was Bhuvanapāla ; his relationship with his predecessor is lost in verse 12, but he appears to have been a son of Śyāma Verse 13, which is fortunately preserved with the exception of a few letters towards the end, mentions Bhuvanapāla’s contact with Bhōja, the king of Dhārā, the half of whose throne he is said to have occupied ; but, because of the loss of a portion which may have said something definitely in this respect, we can hardly be definite on the point, though the expression mantra-balāt, used in this verse, indicates that he was Bhoja’s minister, and probably the Chief minister, as also suggested by the word mukhya used along with it. Bhuvanapāla’s son was Vāsudēva, who is said to have curbed all his enemies, who are not mentioned by names ; and his son was Dāmōdara, who was the Treasury Officer of the king Chāhaḍa.

   Taking Dāmōdara as a contemporary of Chāhaḍa (1231-1254 A.C.), and the former’s grandfather as a contemporary of Bhōjadēva of Dhārā, as mentioned in the record, we find an interval of nearly two centuries between the Paramāra Bhōja and the Yajvapāla king, which appears to be rather great, thought Sircar has observed that it is not altogether impossible.

   Reverting to the main theme, we are told that Vāsudēva’s wife was Dharmā, who gave birth to five sons, all of whom were intelligent (vv. 11-19). The name of the first of these sons is again lost in verse 20 ; he is stated to have acquired proficiency in all the branches of learning and was also expert in describing families (vaṁśa-varṇana). He was helpful to the kings of Gwālior, in the work of administration, and he was a warrior too. Here the expression Gōpa-bhūpa appears to signify Gōpāla, the Yajvapāla king, in its shorter form.

   A portion of the next verse only states that “I am his younger brother” ; and here the inscription abruptly ends.^[2] It however appears that the following portion may have been desired to be devoted to the description of this younger brother whose name and the other details we do not know. And it may also be apparently presumed that the remaining portion of the epigraph was devoted to mention the object of the record and the date, probably also with the name of the composer and the year at the end.

   Pithana mentioned in line 15 cannot be identified. He may or may not have been the homonymous person mentioned in verse 15 of the next inscription.

   As for the geographical names mentioned in the inscription, Kāśi and Gayā (v. 17) are the well known holy places ; and Padōnalaksha (v. 3) may have been applied to the dominion of the Yajvapālas. Dhārā (vv. 5 and 13) is evidently the Paramāra capital Dhār, and Gōpagiri (v. 10) is the well-known Gwalior.
______________________________

^[1] Here the reading is Savanāṁ, with a portion lost. It is not known if we should have the padachchhēda as saḥ vanām, which, however, appears to be rather curious.
^[2] For a similar incomplete inscription, see C. I. I., Vol. IV, p. 637.