North Indian Inscriptions

SUPPLEMENTARY INSCRIPTIONS

does it say anything about his pedigree. But from the provenance of the record it is not unlikely that he may have been a successor (and probably a son) of the Paramāra king Pratāpasiṁha mentioned in the preceding inscription which was dated in V.S. 1344 or 1285-86 A.C. and which comes from a place (Girvaḍ) which is only 20 kms. to its south.

The preceding inscription which we have just referred to, mentions Pratāpasiṁha, a brave king who relieved his kingdom from Jaitrakarṇa who was, as we have already seen, the Guhila king whose known dates range between 1213 and 1253 A.C. And in view of this, it would appear rather curious that Vikramasiṁha, who was his successor, as we have presumed here, is mentioned in the present record not with any reigning title but only as belonging to the family of a Mahārāja or Mahārājakula, i.e., Mahā-rāüla, which is a lower title^[1] ; and this may go to indicate that his kingdom, too, may have been circumscribed about this time. The Sūndhā stone inscription of 1263 A.C. states that Chāchigadēva of Jālōr (c. 1225-1285 A.C.) “enjoyed the fall of the tremulous Pātuka”^[2] who has been correctly identified with Pratāpasiṁha, the Paramāra ruler of Ābū.^[3] From his inscriptions found in the areas of Jālōr, Sirōhī and Mēwāḍ, Chāchiga also appears to have made further conquests in these regions^[4] adding to the dominions left to him by his father Udayasiṁha, even in the turbulant days when Nāsiruddīn Mahmūd and Balban were invading parts of Rājasthān, and his zest of conquest is also well known from his inscription of V.S. 1330 or 1274 A.C. found at Barloot,^[5] which is only about 16 kms. from Sirōhī, to its north-west, and situated about 50 kms. north of Girvaḍ, where the preceding inscription was found. In view of this, Vikramasiṁha, who may have been the last ruler of the house, appears to have lost some of his territories to the Chāhamānas, who were gradually extending their conquests in this direction in consequence of the pressure caused on them by the armies of Alauddīn Khalji from 1310 to 1314 A.C.^[6]

The only geographical name appearing in the inscription is V(B)rahmāṇa in l. 2, which may undoubtedly be identified with Varmān where the inscription was found and which is the corrupt form of Brahmāṇḍa, as already seen above.^[7]

TEXT^[8]

______________________
^[1] This title was also borne by some other kings, e.g., Sōmasiṁha, son of Dhārāvarsha of this house.
Udayasiṁha and his son Chāchigadēva of the Chāhamāna house and some of the kings of the Guhila dynasty, and it is taken to have been
probably a religious rather than a political title somehow connected with the Rāwals. See A. S. I. R., W. C., 1907-08, pp. 38 f.
^[2] Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, pp. 74 ff ; text, v. 50.
^[3] E. C. D., p. 156.
^[4] The Sōnpur and Sūndhā inscriptions come from Sirōbī and the Karhēḍ inscription from Mēwāḍ. ^[5] See Ep. Ind., Vol. XXXVI, pp. 58 ff.
^[6] From Nainsi’s account it is rightly concluded that the Chauhans conquered Ābū from the Paramāras. See E. C. D., p. 176.
^[7] See No. 61, above.
^[8] From the original and inked estampages.
^[9] Expressed by a symbol which is partly visible.
^[10] This and the following abbreviations I am unable to make out. The reading of this letter too is doubtful and the horizontal stroke of the
mātrā is joined to the letter, as in the case of dhā.
^[11] It is impossible to say whether Chīchaï was a royal personage or a private individual. It is equally impossible to say whether the word
has to be restored to bhāryā; in that case, however, the name that follows has also to be restored to Lalatadēvī, i.e., Lalitādēvī.
^[12] The upper part of the loop of the subscript of svā is faintly visible.
^[13] This portion is corrupt. Before the last akshara, appears a sign resembling a crescent with that of anusvara above ; and the inscription is
incomplete.