North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE YAJVAPALAS OF NARWAR

   Note :─ In editing the inscriptions here I have followed the numbers given to them by Dr. D. C. Sircar, but his numbers 13 and 14 are excluded, as I am not sure whether they are connected with the battle. See his note also where he says that “it is not possible to be sure on the point.”

   None of the heroes whose names are recorded in the inscriptions seems to be historically important, except Brahmadēva who is endowed with the title Mahākumāra and who is mentioned as Gōpāladēva’s Chief Minister. All the warriors commemorated in the records are stated to have fallen in field while fighting on behalf of the Narwar ruler Gōpāladēva, which may perhaps indicate that ultimately he came out victorious. The whole incident appears to have been that the Chandēlla forces took the initiative and penetrated into the Yajvapāla territories, but soon after they crossed the river, they were defeated and driven back by the army of the Yajvapala king.^[1]

   Only one geographical name is mentioned in the inscription. It is variously spelt as Valuvā, Vālukā, Valua, Valuā, Valubā, Vāluka and Valuka, which is no other than the stream mentioned above as the tributary of the Sindh and flowing about a mile to the east of the hamlet of Baṅglā where the inscriptions were found.

No. 162^[2]

__________________________
^[1] For more remarks on the same, see the Dābī plate inscription of the Chandēlla Vīravarman, in A. S. I. R., Vol. XXI, pp. 74 ff. Also see Ind, Ant., 1918, p. 241 ; and I. H. R., XXXII, pp. 404 f.
^[2] From photographic illustration accompanying Dr. D. C. Sircar’s article in Ep. Ind., Vol. XXXI.
^[3] Expressed by symbol, which, as already noted by Sircar, has not the usual globular sign at the end.
^[4] This and some other daṇḍas below are redundant.
^[5] As suggested by Sircar, read .
^[6] This may be a contraction of Samrāṭ.
^[7] Read (Sanskrit): (or (Sanskrit─) (Sanskrit): . This clearly shows that the besiegers were repulsed.
^[8] Read (Sanskrit)-. It cannot be definitely known whether it is one word, as taken by Sircar, or the prefix sat may be taken in the sense of showing faithfulness on the part of the Rāṇaka, to his sovereign lord.
^[9] This expression is grammatically incorrect but the meaning is clear, viz., that Dhūmādēvī, the chief consort of Visala who died fighting, committed Sati.