Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d.580–808. During Valabhi and ChÁlukya ascendancy a small Gurjjara kingdom flourished in and about Broach. As has been noticed in the Valabhi chapter the Gurjjaras were a foreign tribe who came to GujarÁt from Northern India. All the available information regarding the Broach Gurjjaras comes from nine copperplates,1 three of them forged, all obtained from South GujarÁt. These plates limit the regular Gurjjara territory to the Broach district between the MahÍ and the NarbadÁ, though at times their power extended north to Khe?Á and south to the TÁpti. Like the grants of the contemporary GujarÁt ChÁlukyas all the genuine copperplates are dated in the TraikÚ?aka era which begins in a.d.249–50.2 The Gurjjara capital seems to have been NÁndÍpurÍ or NÁndor,3 the modern NÁndod the capital of RÁjpipla in Rewa KÁntha about thirty-four miles east of Broach. Two of their grants issue NÁndÍpurÍtah?4 that is ‘from NÁndÍpurÍ’ like the ValabhÍtah? or ‘from Valabhi’ of the Valabhi copperplates, a phrase which in both cases seems to show the place named was the capital since in other Gurjjara grants the word vÁsaka or camp occurs.5

Copperplates.Though the Gurjjaras held a considerable territory in South GujarÁt their plates seem to show they were not independent rulers. The general titles are either Samadhigata-panchamahÁsabada ‘He who has attained the five great titles,’ or SÁmanta Feudatory. In one instance Jayabha?a III. who was probably a powerful ruler is called SÁmantÁdhipati6 Lord of Feudatories. It is hard to say to what suzerain these Broach Gurjjaras acknowledged fealty. Latterly they seem to have accepted the ChÁlukyas on the south as their overlords. But during the greater part of their existence they may have been feudatories of the Valabhi dynasty, who, as
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d.580–808.
Copperplates. mentioned above were probably Gurjjaras who passed from MÁlwa to South GujarÁt and thence by sea to Valabhi leaving a branch in South GujarÁt.

The facts that in a.d.649 (Valabhi 330) a Valabhi king had a ‘camp of victory’ at Broach where Ra?agraha’s plate7 shows the Gurjjaras were then ruling and that the Gurjjara king Dadda II. gave shelter to a Valabhi king establish a close connection between Valabhi and the NÁndod Gurjjaras.

Their copperplates and seals closely resemble the plates and seals of the GujarÁt ChÁlukyas. The characters of all but the forged grants are like those of GujarÁt ChÁlukya grants and belong to the GujarÁt variety of the Southern India style. At the same time it is to be noted that the royal signature at the end of the plates is of the northern type, proving that the Gurjjaras were originally northerners. The language of most of the grants is Sanskrit prose as in Valabhi plates in a style curiously like the style of the contemporary author BÁ?a in his great works the KÁdambarÍ and Harshacharita. From this it may be inferred that BÁ?a’s style was not peculiar to himself but was the style in general use in India at that time.

Gurjjara Tree.The following is the Gurjjara family tree:

A recently published grant8 made by Nirihullaka, the chieftain of a jungle tribe in the lower valley of the NarbadÁ, shows that towards the end of the sixth century a.d. that region was occupied by wild tribes who acknowledged the supremacy of the Chedi or Kalachuri kings: a fact which accounts for the use of the Chedi or TraikÚ?aka era in South GujarÁt. Nirihullaka names with respect a king San?kara?a, whom Dr. BÜhler would identify with San?karaga?a the father of the Kalachuri Buddhavarmman who was defeated by MangalÍsa the ChÁlukya about a.d.600.9 San?karaga?a himself must have flourished about a.d.580, and the Gurjjara conquest must be subsequent to this date. Another new grant,10 which is only a fragment and contains no king’s name, but which on the ground of date (Sam?.346 = a.d.594–5) and style may be safely attributed to the Gurjjara dynasty, shows that the Gurjjaras were established in the country within a few years of San?karaga?a’s probable date.

A still nearer approximation to the date of the Gurjjara conquest is suggested by the change in the titles of Dharasena I. of Valabhi, who
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d.580–808. in his grants of Sam?vat 25211 (a.d.571) calls himself MahÁrÁja, while in his grants of 269 and 27012 (a.d.588 and 589), he adds the title of MahÁsÁmanta, which points to subjection by some foreign power between a.d.571 and a.d.588. It seems highly probable that this power was that of the Gurjjaras of BhÍnmÁl; and that their successes therefore took place between a.d.580 and 588 or about a.d.585.

Dadda I. C. 585–605 a.d.The above mentioned anonymous grant of the year 346 (a.d.594–95) is ascribed with great probability to Dadda I. who is known from the two Khe?Á grants of his grandson Dadda II. (C. 620–650 a.d.)13 to have “uprooted the NÁga” who must be the same as the jungle tribes ruled by Nirihullaka and are now represented by the NÁikdÁs of the Panch MahÁls and the Talabdas or Locals of Broach. The northern limit of Dadda’s kingdom seems to have been the Vindhya, as the grant of 380 (a.d.628–29) says that the lands lying around the feet of the Vindhya were for his pleasure. At the same time it appears that part at least of Northern GujarÁt was ruled by the MahÁsÁmanta Dharasena of Valabhi, who in Val. 270 (a.d.589–90) granted a village in the ÁhÁra of Khe?aka (Khe?Á).14 Dadda is always spoken of as the SÁmanta, which shows that while he lived his territory remained a part of the Gurjjara kingdom of BhÍnmÁl. Subsequently North GujarÁt fell into the hands of the MÁlava kings, to whom it belonged in Hiuen Tsiang’s time (C. 640a.d.).15 Dadda I. is mentioned in the two Khe?Á grants of his grandson as a worshipper of the sun: the fragmentary grant of 346 (a.d.594–95) which is attributed to him gives no historical details.

Jayabha?a I. VÍtarÁga, C. 605–620 a.d.Dadda I. was succeeded by his son Jayabha?a I. who is mentioned in the Khe?Á grants as a victorious and virtuous ruler, and appears from his title of VÍtarÁga the Passionless to have been a religious prince.

Dadda II. PrasÁntarÁga, C. 620–650 a.d.Jayabha?a I. was succeeded by his son Dadda II. who bore the title of PrasÁntarÁga the Passion-calmed. Dadda was the donor of the two Khe?Á grants of 380 (a.d.628–29) and 385 (a.d.633–34), and a part of a grant made by his brother Ra?agraha in the year 391 (a.d.639–40) has lately been published.16 Three forged grants purporting to have been issued by him are dated respectively Saka 400 (a.d.478), Saka 415 (a.d.493), and Saka 417 (a.d.495).17 Both of the Khe?Á grants relate to the gift of the village of SirÍshapadraka (Sisodra) in the AkrÚresvara (Anklesvar) vishaya to certain BrÁhmans of Jambusar and Broach. In Ra?agraha’s grant the name of the village is lost.

Dadda II.’s own grants describe him as having attained the five great titles, and praise him in general terms: and both he and his brother Ra?agraha sign their grants as devout worshippers of the sun. Dadda II. heads the genealogy in the later grant of 456 (a.d.704–5),18 which states that he protected “the lord of Valabhi who had been defeated by the great lord the illustrious Harshadeva.” The event referred to must have been some expedition of the great Harshavardhana of Kanauj
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d.580–808.
Dadda II. PrasÁntarÁga, C. 620–650 a.d. (a.d.607–648), perhaps the campaign in which Harsha was defeated on the NarbadÁ by Pulakesi II. (which took place before a.d.634). The protection given to the Valabhi king is perhaps referred to in the Khe?Á grants in the mention of “strangers and suppliants and people in distress.” If this is the case the defeat of Valabhi took place before a.d.628–29, the date of the earlier of the Khe?Á grants. On the other hand, the phrase quoted is by no means decisive, and the fact that in Hiuen Tsiang’s time Dhruvasena of Valabhi was son-in-law of Harsha’s son, makes it unlikely that Harsha should have been at war with him. It follows that the expedition referred to may have taken place in the reign of Dharasena IV. who may have been the son of Dhruvasena by another wife than Harsha’s granddaughter.

To Dadda II.’s reign belongs Hiuen Tsiang’s notice of the kingdom of Broach (C. 640 a.d.).19 He says “all their profit is from the sea” and describes the country as salt and barren, which is still true of large tracts in the west and twelve hundred years ago was probably the condition of a much larger area than at present. Hiuen Tsiang does not say that Broach was subject to any other kingdom, but it is clear from the fact that Dadda bore the five great titles that he was a mere feudatory. At this period the valuable port of Broach, from which all their profit was made, was a prize fought for by all the neighbouring powers. With the surrounding country of LÁ?a, Broach submitted to Pulakesi II. (a.d.610–640):20 it may afterwards have fallen to the MÁlava kings, to whom in Hiuen Tsiang’s time (a.d.640) both Khe?Á (K’ie-ch’a) and Ánandapura (Vadnagar) belonged; later it was subject to Valabhi, as Dharasena IV. made a grant at Broach in V.S. 330 (a.d.649–50).21

Knowledge of the later Gurjjaras is derived exclusively from two grants of Jayabha?a III. dated respectively 456 (a.d.704–5) and 486 (a.d.734–5).22 The later of these two grants is imperfect, only the last plate having been preserved. The earlier grant of 456 (a.d.704–5) shows that during the half century following the reign of Dadda II. the dynasty had ceased to call themselves Gurjjaras, and had adopted a PurÁ?ic pedigree traced from king Kar?a, a hero of the BhÁrata war. It also shows that from Dadda III. onward the family were Saivas instead of sun-worshippers.

Jayabha?a II. C. 650–675 a.d.The successor of Dadda II. was his son Jayabha?a II. who is described as a warlike prince, but of whom no historical details are recorded.

Dadda III. BÁhusahÁya, C. 675–700.Jayabha?a’s son, Dadda III. BÁhusahÁya, is described as waging wars with the great kings of the east and of the west (probably MÁlava and Valabhi). He was the first Saiva of the family, studied Manu’s works, and strictly enforced “the duties of the var?as or castes and of the Ásramas or BrÁhman stages.” It was probably to him that the Gurjjaras owed their PurÁ?ic pedigree and their recognition as true Kshatriyas. Like his predecessors, Dadda III.
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d.580–808.
Dadda III. BÁhusahÁya, C. 675–700. was not an independent ruler. He could claim only the five great titles, though no hint is given who was his suzerain. His immediate superior may have been Jayasim?ha the ChÁlukya, who received the province of LÁ?a from his brother VikramÁditya (c. 669–680 a.d.)23

Jayabha?a III. c. 704–734 a.d.The son and successor of Dadda III. was Jayabha?a III. whose two grants of 456 (a.d.704–5) and 486 (a.d.734–5)24 must belong respectively to the beginning and the end of his reign. He attained the five great titles, and was therefore a feudatory, probably of the ChÁlukyas: but his title of MahÁsÁmantÁdhipati implies that he was a chief of importance. He is praised in vague terms, but the only historical event mentioned in his grants is a defeat of a lord of Valabhi, noted in the grant of 486 (a.d.734–5). The Valabhi king referred to must be either SÍlÁditya IV. (a.d.691) or SÍlÁditya V. (a.d.722). During the reign of Jayabha?a III. took place the great Arab invasion which was repulsed by Pulakesi JanÁsraya at NavsÁrÍ.25 Like the kingdoms named in the grant of Pulakesi, Broach must have suffered from this raid. It is not specially mentioned probably because it formed part of Pulakesi’s territory.

After a.d.734–5 no further mention occurs of the Gurjjaras of Broach. Whether the dynasty was destroyed by the Arabs or by the GujarÁt RÁsh?rakÚ?as (a.d.750) is not known. Later references to Gurjjaras in RÁsh?rakÚ?a times refer to the Gurjjaras of BhÍnmÁl not to the Gurjjaras of Broach, who, about the time of Dadda III. (C. 675–700 a.d.), ceased to call themselves Gurjjaras.

A few words must be said regarding the three grants from IlÁo, UmetÁ, and BagumrÁ (Ind. Ant. XIII. 116, VII. 61, and XVII. 183) as their genuineness has been assumed by Dr. BÜhler in his recent paper on the MahÁbhÁrata, in spite of Mr. Fleet’s proof (Ind. Ant. XVIII. 19) that their dates do not work out correctly.

Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl’s (Ind. Ant. XIII. 70) chief grounds for holding that the UmetÁ and IlÁo grants (the BagumrÁ grant was unknown to him) were forgeries were:

• (1) Their close resemblance in palÆography to one another and to the forged grant of Dharasena II. of Valabhi dated Saka 400;
• (2) That though they purport to belong to the fifth century they bear the same writer’s name as the Khe?Á grants of the seventh century.

Further Mr. Fleet (Ind. Ant. XIII. 116) pointed out:

• (3) That the description of Dadda I. in the IlÁo and UmetÁ grants agrees almost literally with that of Dadda II. in the Khe?Á grants, and that where it differs the Khe?Á grants have the better readings.

To these arguments Dr. BÜhler has replied (Ind. Ant. XVII. 183):

• (1) That though there is a resemblance between these grants and that of Dharasena II., still it does not prove more than that the forger of Dharasena’s grant had one of the other grants before him;
• (2) That, as the father’s name of the writer is not given in the Khe?Á grants, it cannot be assumed that he was the same person as the writer of the IlÁo and UmetÁ grants; and
  Chapter X.
  The Gurjjaras, a.d.580–808.
• (3) That genuine grants sometimes show that a description written for one king is afterwards applied to another, and that good or bad readings are no test of the age of a grant.

It may be admitted that Dr. BÜhler has made it probable that the suspected grants and the grant of Dharasena were not all written by the same hand, and also that the coincidence in the writer’s name is not of much importance in itself. But the palÆographical resemblance between Dharasena’s grant on the one hand and the doubtful Gurjjara grants on the other is so close that they must have been written at about the same time. As to the third point, the verbal agreement between the doubtful grants on the one hand and the Khe?Á grants on the other implies the existence of a continuous tradition in the record office of the dynasty from the end of the fifth till near the middle of the seventh century. But the San?khe?Á grant of Nirihullaka (Ep. Ind. II. 21) shows that towards the end of the sixth century the lower NarbadÁ valley was occupied by jungle tribes who acknowledged the supremacy of the Kalachuris. Is it reasonable to suppose that after the first Gurjjara line was thus displaced, the restorers of the dynasty should have had any memory of the forms in which the first line drew up their grants? At any rate, if they had, they would also have retained their original seal, which, as the analogy of the Valabhi plates teaches us, would bear the founder’s name. But we find that the seal of the Khe?Á plates bears the name “SÁmanta Dadda,” who can be no other than the “SÁmanta Dadda” who ruled from C. 585–605 a.d. It follows that the Gurjjaras of the seventh century themselves traced back their history in Broach no further than a.d.585. Again, it has been pointed out in the text that a passage in the description of Dadda II. (a.d.620–650) in the Khe?Á grants seems to refer to his protection of the Valabhi king, so that the description must have been written for him and not for the fifth century Dadda as Dr. BÜhler’s theory requires.

These points coupled with Mr. Fleet’s proof (Ind. Ant. XVIII. 91) that the Saka dates do not work out correctly, may perhaps be enough to show that none of these three grants can be relied upon as genuine.—(A. M. T. J.)