James M. Campbell

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
Authorities. Authorities.The next rulers are the Chaulukyas or Solan?kis (a.d.964–1242) whose conversion to Jainism has secured them careful record by Jain chroniclers. The earliest writer on the Solan?kis, the learned Jain priest Hemachandra (a.d.1089–1173), in his work called the DvyÁsraya, has given a fairly full and correct account of the dynasty up to SiddharÁja (a.d.1143). The work is said to have been begun by Hemachandra about a.d.1160, and to have been finished and revised by another Jain monk named Abhayatilakaga?i in a.d.1255.1 The last chapter which is in Prakrit deals solely with king KumÁrapÁla. This work is a grammar rather than a chronicle, still, though it has little reference to dates, it is a good collection of tales and descriptions. For chronology the best guide is the VichÁrasre?i which its author has taken pains to make the chief authority in dates. The VichÁrasre?i was written by Merutu?ga about a.d.1314, some time after he wrote the PrabandhachintÁma?i.

The Name Chaulukya.According to the VichÁrasre?i after the ChÁva?Ás, in a.d.961 (Vaishakh Suddha 1017), began the reign of MÚlarÁja the son of a daughter of the last ChÁva?Á ruler. The name Chaulukya is a Sanskritised form, through an earlier form ChÁlukya, of the old names Chalkya, Chalikya, ChirÎkya, ChÁlukya of the great Dakhan dynasty (a.d.552–973), made to harmonise with the PurÁ?ic-looking story that the founder of the dynasty sprang from the palm or chuluka of Brahma. The form Chaulukya seems to have been confined to authors and writers. It was used by the great Dakhan poet Bilha?a (c. 1050 a.d.) and by the A?ahilavÁ?a chroniclers. In GujarÁt the popular form of the word seems to have been Solaki or Solan?ki (a dialectic variant of Chalukya), a name till lately used by GujarÁt bards. The sameness of name seems to show the Dakhan and GujarÁt dynasties to be branches of one stock. No materials are available to trace the original seat of the family or to show when and whence they came to GujarÁt. The balance of probability is, as Dr. BÜhler holds, that MÚlarÁja’s ancestors came from the north.2

MÚlarÁja, a.d.961–996.The Suk?itasankÍrtana says that the last ChÁva?Á king BhÚbha?a was succeeded by his sister’s son MÚlarÁja. Of the family or country of MÚlarÁja’s father no details are given. The PrabandhachintÁma?i calls MÚlarÁja the sister’s son of SÁmantasim?ha and gives the following details. In a.d.930 of the family of Bhuiya?a (who destroyed Jayasekhara) were three brothers RÁji, Bija, and Da??aka, who stopped at A?ahilavÁ?a on their way back from a pilgrimage to SomanÁtha in the guise of KÁrpa?ika or KÁpdi beggars. The three brothers attended a cavalry
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
MÚlarÁja, a.d.961–996. parade held by king SÁmantasim?ha. An objection taken by RÁji to some of the cavalry movements pleased SÁmantasim?ha, who, taking him to be the scion of some noble family, gave him his sister LÍlÁdevÍ in marriage. LÍlÁdevÍ died pregnant and the child, which was taken alive from its dead mother’s womb was called MÚlarÁja, because the operation was performed when the MÚla constellation was in power. MÚlarÁja grew into an able and popular prince and helped to extend the kingdom of his maternal uncle. In a fit of intoxication SÁmantasim?ha ordered MÚlarÁja to be placed on the throne. He afterwards cancelled the grant. But MÚlarÁja contended that a king once installed could not be degraded. He collected troops defeated and slew his uncle and succeeded to the throne in a.d.942 (S. 998). The main facts of this tale, that MÚlarÁja’s father was one RÁji of the ChÁlukya family, that his mother was a ChÁva?Á. princess, and that he came to the ChÁva?Á throne by killing his maternal uncle, appear to be true. That MÚlarÁja’s father’s name was RÁji is proved by Dr. BÜhler’s copperplate of MÚlarÁja.3 Merutun?ga’s details that RÁji came in disguise to A?ahilavÁ?a, took the fancy of SÁmantasim?ha, and received his sister in marriage seem fictions in the style common in the bardic praises of RÁjput princes. Dr. BÜhler’s copperplate further disproves the story as it calls MÚlarÁja the son of the illustrious RÁji, the great king of kings MahÁrÁjÁdhirÁja, a title which would not be given to a wandering prince. RÁji appears to have been of almost equal rank with the ChÁva?Ás. The RatnamÁlÁ calls RÁji fifth in descent from Bhuva?a, his four predecessors being Kar?Áditya, ChÁndrÁditya, SomÁditya, and BhuvanÁditya. But the RatnamÁlÁ list is on the face of it wrong, as it gives five instead of seven or eight kings to fill the space of over 200 years between Jayasekhara and MÚlarÁja.

Most Jain chroniclers begin the history of A?ahilavÁ?a with MÚlarÁja who with the Jains is the glory of the dynasty. After taking the small ChÁva?Á kingdom MÚlarÁja spread his power in all directions, overrunning KÁthiÁvÁ?a and Kacch on the west, and fighting BÁrappa of LÁ?a or South GujarÁt on the south, and VigraharÁja king of Ajmir on the north. The Ajmir kings were called SapÁdalaksha. Why they were so called is not known. This much is certain that SapÁdalaksha is the Sanskrit form of the modern SewÁlik. It would seem that the ChohÁns, whom the GujarÁt Jain chroniclers call SapÁdalakshÍya, must have come to GujarÁt from the SewÁlik hills. After leaving the SewÁlik hills the capital was at Ajmir, which is usually said to have been first fortified by the ChohÁn king AjayapÁla (a.d.1174–1177).4 This story seems invented by the ChohÁns. The name Ajmir appears to be derived from the Mehrs who were in power in these parts between the fifth and the eighth centuries. The HammÍramahÁkÁvya begins the ChohÁn genealogy with VÁsudeva (a.d.780) and states that VÁsudeva’s fourth successor AjayapÁla established the hill fort of Ajmir. About this time (a.d.840) the ChohÁns seem to have made settlements in the Ajmir country and to have harassed GujarÁt. VigraharÁja the tenth in succession
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
MÚlarÁja, a.d.961–996. from VÁsudeva is described as killing MÚlarÁja and weakening the Gurjjara country.5 The author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i gives the following details. The SapÁdalaksha or Ajmir king entered GujarÁt to attack MÚlarÁja and at the same time from the south MÚlarÁja’s territory was invaded by BÁrappa a general of king Tailapa of TelingÁna.6 Unable to face both enemies MÚlarÁja at his minister’s advice retired to KanthÁdurga apparently Kanthkot in Cutch.7 He remained there till the NavarÁtra or Nine-Night festival at the close of the rains when he expected the SapÁdalaksha king would have to return to Ajmir to worship the goddess SÁkambharÍ when BÁrappa would be left alone. At the close of the rains the SapÁdalaksha king fixed his camp near a place called SÁkambharÍ and bringing the goddess SÁkambharÍ there held the Nine-Night festival. This device disappointed MÚlarÁja. He sent for his sÁmantas or nobles and gave them presents. He told them his plans and called on them to support him in attacking the SapÁdalaksha king. MÚlarÁja then mounted a female elephant with no attendant but the driver and in the evening came suddenly to the Ajmir camp. He dismounted and holding a drawn sword in his hand said to the doorkeeper ‘What is your king doing. Go and tell your lord that MÚlarÁja waits at his door.’ While the attendant was on his way to give the message, MÚlarÁja pushed him on one side and himself went into the presence. The doorkeeper called ‘Here comes MÚlarÁja.’ Before he could be stopped MÚlarÁja forced his way in and took his seat on the throne. The Ajmir king in consternation asked ‘Are you MÚlarÁja?’ MÚlarÁja answered ‘I would regard him as a brave king who would meet me face to face in battle. While I was thinking no such brave enemy exists, you have arrived. I ask no better fortune than to fight with you. But as soon as you are come, like a bee falling in at dinner time, BÁrappa the general of king Tailapa of Telingana has arrived to attack me. While I am punishing him you should keep quiet and not give me a side blow.’ The Ajmir king said, ‘Though you are a king, you have come here alone like a foot soldier, not caring for your safety. I will be your ally for life.’ MÚlarÁja replied ‘Say not so.’ He refused the RÁja’s invitation to dine, and leaving sword in hand mounted his elephant and with his nobles attacked the camp of BÁrappa. BÁrappa was killed and eighteen of his elephants and 10,000 of his horses fell into MÚlarÁja’s hands. While returning with the spoil MÚlarÁja received news that the SapÁdalaksha king had fled.

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
MÚlarÁja, a.d.961–996. This story of the author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i differs from that given by the author of the HammÍrakÁvya who describes MÚlarÁja as defeated and slain. The truth seems to be that the AjmÍr king defeated MÚlarÁja and on MÚlarÁja’s submission did not press his advantage. In these circumstances MÚlarÁja’s victory over BÁrappa seems improbable. The DvyÁsraya devotes seventy-five verses (27–101) of its sixth chapter to the contest between BÁrappa and MÚlarÁja. The details may be thus summarised. Once when MÚlarÁja received presents from various Indian kings DvÁrappa8 king of LÁ?adesa sent an ill-omened elephant. The marks being examined by royal officers and by prince ChÁmu??a, they decided the elephant would bring destruction on the king who kept him. The elephant was sent back in disgrace and MÚlarÁja and his son started with an army to attack LÁ?adesa and avenge the insult. In his march MÚlarÁja first came to the SvabhravatÍ or SÁbarmatÍ which formed the boundary of his kingdom, frightening the people. From the SÁbarmatÍ he advanced to the ancient PurÍ9 where also the people became confused. The LÁ?a king prepared for fight, and was slain by ChÁmu??a in single combat. MÚlarÁja advanced to Broach where BÁrappa who was assisted by the island kings opposed him. ChÁmu??a overcame them and slew BÁrappa. After this success MÚlarÁja and ChÁmu??a returned to A?ahilapura.10

The DvyÁsraya styles BÁrappa king of LÁ?adesa; the PrabandhachintÁma?i calls him a general of Tailapa king of TelingÁna; the Suk?itasankÍrtana a general of the KanyÁkubja king; and the KÍrtikaumudÍ11 a general of the Lord of LÁ?a.

Other evidence proves that at the time of MÚlarÁja a Chaulukya king named BÁrappa did reign in LÁ?adesa. The Surat grant of KÍrtirÁja grandson of BÁrappa is dated a.d.1018 (Saka 940). This, taking twenty years to a king, brings BÁrappa’s date to a.d.978 (Saka 900), a year which falls in the reign of MÚlarÁja (a.d.961–996; S. 1027–1053). The statement in the PrabandhachintÁma?i that BÁrappa was a general of Tailapa seems correct. The southern form of the name BÁrappa supports the statement. And as Tailapa overthrew the RÁsh?rakÚ?as in a.d.972 (Saka 894) he might well place a general in military charge of LÁ?a, and allow him practical independence. This would explain why the DvyÁsraya calls BÁrappa king of LÁ?adesa and why the KÍrtikaumudÍ calls him general of the Lord of LÁ?a.

One of MÚlarÁja’s earliest wars was with Graharipu the ÁbhÍra or ChÚ?ÁsamÁ ruler of Sorath.12 According to MÚlarÁja’s bards, the cause
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
MÚlarÁja, a.d.961–996. of war was Graharipu’s oppression of pilgrims to PrabhÁsa. Graharipu’s capital was VÁmanasthalÍ, the modern VanthalÍ nine miles west of JunÁga?h, and the fort of Durgapalli which Graharipu is said to have established must be JunÁga?h itself which was not then a capital. Graharipu is described as a cow-eating Mlechha and a grievous tyrant. He is said to have had much influence over LÁkhÁ son of king Phula of Kacch and to have been helped by Turks and other Mlechhas. When MÚlarÁja reached the JambumÁli river, he was met by Graharipu and his army. With Graharipu was LÁkhÁ of Kacch, the king of Sindh probably a SumrÁ, MewÁs Bhilas, and the sons of Graharipu’s wife NÍlÍ who had been summoned from near the Bhadar river by a message in the Yavana language.13 With MÚlarÁja were the kings of SilÁprastha,14 of MÁrwÁr, of KÁsÍ, of Arbuda or Abu, and of SrÍmÁla or BhÍnmÁl. MÚlarÁja had also his own younger brother GangÁmah, his friend king RevatÍmitra, and Bhils. It is specially mentioned that in this expedition MÚlarÁja received no help from the sons of his paternal uncles BÍja and Dandaka. The fight ended in Graharipu being made prisoner by MÚlarÁja, and in LÁkhÁ being slain with a spear. After the victory MÚlarÁja went to PrabhÁsa, worshipped the lin?ga, and returned to A?ahilavÁ?a with his army and 108 elephants.

According to the author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i LÁkhÁ met his death in a different contest with MÚlarÁja. LÁkhÁ who is described as the son of PhuladÁ, and KÁmalatÁ daughter of KÍrttirÁja a ParmÁr king, is said to have been invincible because he was under the protection of king Yasovarman of MÁlwa. He defeated MÚlarÁja’s army eleven times. In a twelfth encounter MÚlarÁja besieged LÁkhÁ in Kapilakot, slew him in single combat, and trod on his flowing beard. Enraged at this insult to her dead son LÁkhÁ’s mother called down on MÚlarÁja’s descendants the curse of the spider poison that is of leprosy.15

Mr. Forbes, apparently from bardic sources, states that on his wife’s death RÁji the father of MÚlarÁja went to the temple of Vish?u at DwÁrkÁ. On his return he visited the court of LÁkhÁ PhulÁni and espoused LÁkhÁ’s sister RÁyÁji by whom he had a son named RÁkhÁich. This marriage proved the ruin of RÁji. In a dispute about precedence LÁkhÁ slew RÁji and many of his RÁjput followers, his wife RÁyÁji becoming a SatÍ. BÍja the uncle of MÚlarÁja urged his nephew to avenge his father’s death and MÚlarÁja was further incited against LÁkhÁ because LÁkhÁ harboured RÁkhÁich the younger son of RÁji at his court as a rival to MÚlarÁja.

According to the DvyÁsraya, either from the rising power of his son or from repentance for his own rough acts, after ChÁmu??a’s victory over BÁrappa MÚlarÁja installed him as ruler and devoted himself to religion and charity. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i MÚlarÁja built in A?ahilavÁ?a a Jain temple named MÚlavasatikÁ. But as the Nandi
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
MÚlarÁja, a.d.961–996. symbol on his copperplate shows that MÚlarÁja was a devoted Saivite, it is possible that this temple was built by some Jain guild or community and named after the reigning chief.16 MÚlarÁja built a MahÁdeva temple called MÚlasvÁmi in A?ahilavÁ?a, and, in honour of SomanÁtha, he built the temple of Mulesvara at Ma??ali-nagara where he went at the bidding of the god.17 He also built at A?ahilavÁ?a a temple of MahÁdeva called TripurushaprÁsÁda on a site to which the tradition attaches that seeing MÚlarÁja daily visiting the temple of MÚlanÁthadeva at Ma??ali, SomanÁtha MahÁdeva being greatly pleased promised to bring the ocean to A?ahilavÁ?a. SomanÁtha came, and the ocean accompanying the god certain ponds became brackish. In honour of these salt pools MÚlarÁja built the TripurushaprÁsÁda. Looking for some one to place in charge of this temple, MÚlarÁja heard of an ascetic named Ka?thadi at Siddhapura on the banks of the SarasvatÍ who used to fast every other day and on the intervening day lived on five morsels of food. MÚlarÁja offered this sage the charge of the temple. The sage declined saying ‘Authority is the surest path to hell.’ Eventually Vayajalladeva a disciple of the sage undertook the management on certain conditions. MÚlarÁja passed most of his days at the holy shrine of Siddhapura, the modern Sidhpur on the SarasvatÍ about fifteen miles north-east of A?ahilavÁ?a. At Sidhpur MÚlarÁja made many grants to BrÁhmans. Several branches of GujarÁt BrÁhmans, AudÍchyas SrÍgau?as and Kanojias, trace their origin in GujarÁt to an invitation from MÚlarÁja to Siddhapura and the local PurÁ?as and MÁhÁtmyas confirm the story. As the term AudÍchya means Northerner MÚlarÁja may have invited BrÁhmans from some such holy place as Kurukshetra which the AudÍchyas claim as their home. From KanyÁkubja in the Madhyadesa between the Ganges and the YamunÁ another equally holy place the KanojÍas may have been invited. The SrÍ Gau?as appear to have come from Bengal and Tirhut. Gau?a and Tirhut BrÁhmans are noted TÁntriks and MantrasÁstris a branch of learning for which both the people and the rulers of GujarÁt have a great fondness. Grants of villages were made to these BrÁhmans. Sidhpur was given to the AudÍchyas, Sim?hapura or Sihor in KÁthiÁvÁ?a to some other colony, and StambhatÍrtha or Cambay to the SrÍ Gau?as. At Siddhapura MÚlarÁja built the famous temple called the RudramahÁlaya or the great shrine of Rudra. According to tradition MÚlarÁja did not complete the RudramahÁlaya and SiddharÁja finished it. In spite of this tradition it does not appear that MÚlarÁja died leaving the great temple unfinished as a copperplate of a.d.987 (S. 1043) records that
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
MÚlarÁja, a.d.961–996. MÚlarÁja made the grant after worshipping the god of the RudramahÁlaya on the occasion of a solar eclipse on the fifteenth of the dark half of MÁgha. It would seem therefore that MÚlarÁja built one large RudramahÁlaya which SiddharÁja may have repaired or enlarged. MÚlarÁja is said while still in health to have mounted the funeral pile, an act which some writers trace to remorse and others to unknown political reasons. The VichÁrasre?i gives the length of MÚlarÁja’s reign at thirty-five years a.d.961–996 (S. 1017–1052); the PrabandhachintÁma?i begins the reign at a.d.942 (S. 998) and ends it at a.d.997 (S. 1053) that is a length of fifty-five years.18 Of the two, thirty-five years seems the more probable, as, if the traditional accounts are correct, MÚlarÁja can scarcely have been a young man when he overthrew his uncle’s power.

ChÁmu??a, a.d.997–1010.Of MÚlarÁja’s son and successor ChÁmu??a no historical information is available. The author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i assigns him a reign of thirteen years. The author of the DvyÁsraya says that he had three sons Vallabha RÁja, Durlabha RÁja, and NÁga RÁja. According to one account ChÁmu??a installed Vallabha in a.d.1010 (S. 1066) and went on pilgrimage to Benares. On his passage through MÁlwa MuÑja the MÁlwa king carried off ChÁmu??a’s umbrella and other marks of royalty.19 ChÁmu??a went on to Benares in the guise of a hermit. On his return he prayed his son to avenge the insult offered by the king of MÁlwa. Vallabha started with an army but died of small-pox. The author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i gives ChÁmu??a a reign of six months, while the author of the VichÁrasre?i entirely drops his name and gives a reign of fourteen years to Vallabha made up of the thirteen years of ChÁmu??a and the six months of Vallabha. This seems to be a mistake. It would seem more correct, as is done in several copperplate lists, to omit Vallabha, since he must have reigned jointly with his father and his name is not wanted for purposes of succession. The VichÁrasre?i and the PrabandhachintÁma?i agree in ending Vallabha’s reign in a.d.1010 (S. 1066). The author of the DvyÁsraya states that ChÁmu??a greatly lamenting the death of Vallabha installed Vallabha’s younger brother Durlabha, and himself retired to die at SuklatÍrtha on the NarbadÁ.

Durlabha, a.d.1010–1022.Durlabha whom the Suk?itasankÍrtana also calls Jagatjhampaka or World Guardian came to the throne in a.d.1010 (S. 1066). The PrabandhachintÁma?i gives the length of his reign at eleven years and six months while the VichÁrasre?i makes it twelve years closing it in a.d.1022 (S. 1078). The author of the DvyÁsraya says that along with his brother NÁga RÁja, Durlabha attended the Svayam?vara or bridegroom-choosing of Durlabha DevÍ the sister of Mahendra the
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
Durlabha, a.d.1010–1022. RÁja of Nadol in MÁrwÁr. The kings of An?ga, KÁsÍ, AvantÍ, ChedÍ, Kuru, HÚ?a, MathurÁ, Vindhya, and Andhra were also present.20 The princess chose Durlabha and Mahendra gave his younger sister LakshmÍ to Durlabha’s brother NÁga RÁja. The princess’ choice of Durlabha drew on him the enmity of certain of the other kings all of whom he defeated. The brothers then returned to A?ahilavÁ?a where Durlabha built a lake called Durlabhasarovara. The author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i says that Durlabha gave up the kingdom to his son (?) BhÍma.21 He also states that Durlabha went on pilgrimage and was insulted on the way by MuÑja king of MÁlwa. This seems the same tale which the DvyÁsraya tells of ChÁmu??a. Since MuÑja cannot have been a cotemporary of Durlabha the DvyÁsraya’s account seems correct.

BhÍma I. a.d.1022–1064.Durlabha was succeeded by his nephew BhÍma the son of Durlabha’s younger brother NÁga RÁja. The author of the DvyÁsraya says that Durlabha wishing to retire from the world offered the kingdom to his nephew BhÍma; that BhÍma declined in favour of his father NÁga RÁja; that NÁga RÁja refused; that Durlabha and NÁga RÁja persuaded BhÍma to take the government; and that after installing BhÍma the two brothers died together. Such a voluntary double death sounds unlikely unless the result was due to the machinations of BhÍma. The PrabandhachintÁma?i gives BhÍma a reign of fifty-two years from a.d.1022 to 1074 (S. 1078–1130), while the VichÁrasre?i reduces his reign to forty-two years placing its close in a.d.1064 (S. 1120). Forty-two years would seem to be correct as another copy of the PrabandhachintÁma?i has 42.

Two copperplates of BhÍma are available one dated a.d.1030 (S. 1086) eight or nine years after he came to the throne, the other from Kacch in a.d.1037 (S. 1093).

BhÍma seems to have been more powerful than either of his predecessors. According to the DvyÁsraya his two chief enemies were the kings of Sindh and of ChedÍ or Bundelkhand. He led a victorious expedition against Hammuka the king of Sindh, who had conquered the king of SivasÁna and another against Kar?a king of ChedÍ who paid tribute and submitted. The PrabandhachintÁma?i has a verse, apparently an old verse interpolated, which says that on the MÁlwa king Bhoja’s death, while sacking DhÁrÁpuri, Kar?a took BhÍma as his coadjutor, and that afterwards BhÍma’s general DÁmara took Kar?a captive and won from him a gold ma??apikÁ or canopy and images of Ganesa and NÍlaka??hesvara MahÁdeva. BhÍma is said to have presented the canopy to SomanÁtha.

When BhÍma was engaged against the king of Sindh, Kulachandra the general of the MÁlwa king Bhoja with all the MÁlwa feudatories, invaded A?ahilavÁ?a, sacked the city, and sowed shell-money at the gate where the time-marking gong was sounded. So great was the
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
BhÍma I. a.d.1022–1064. loss that the ‘sacking of Kulachandra’ has passed into a proverb. Kulachandra also took from A?ahilavÁ?a an acknowledgment of victory or jayapatra. On his return Bhoja received Kulachandra with honour but blamed him for not sowing salt instead of shell-money.22 He said the shell-money is an omen that the wealth of MÁlwa will flow to GujarÁt. An unpublished inscription of Bhoja’s successor UdayÁditya in a temple at Udepur near BhilsÁ confirms the above stating that BhÍma was conquered by Bhoja’s officers.23

The Solan?ki kings of A?ahilapura being Saivites held the god SomanÁtha of PrabhÁsa in great veneration. The very ancient and holy shrine of PrabhÁsa has long been a place of special pilgrimage. As early as the YÁdavas of DwÁrkÁ,24 pilgrimages to PrabhÁsa are recorded but the MahÁbhÁrata makes no mention either of SomanÁtha or of any other Saivite shrine. The shrine of SomanÁtha was probably not established before the time of the Valabhis (a.d.480–767). As the Valabhi kings were most open-handed in religious gifts, it was probably through their grants that the SomanÁtha temple rose to importance. The Solan?kis were not behind the Valabhis in devotion to SomanÁtha. To save pilgrims from oppression MÚlarÁja fought Graharipu the ÁbhÍra king of Sorath.25 MÚlarÁja afterwards went to PrabhÁsa and also built temples in GujarÁt in honour of the god SomanÁtha. As MÚlarÁja’s successors ChÁmu??a and Durlabha continued firm devotees of SomanÁtha during their reigns (a.d.997–1022) the wealth of the temple must have greatly increased.

MahmÚd’s Invasion, a.d.1024.No GujarÁt Hindu writer refers to the destruction of the great temple soon after BhÍma’s accession.26 But the MusalmÁn historians place beyond doubt that in a.d.1024 the famous tenth raid of
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SomanÁtha, a.d.1024. SomanÁtha, a.d.1024.MahmÚd of Ghazni, ended in the destruction and plunder of SomanÁtha.27

Of the destruction of SomanÁtha the earliest MusalmÁn account, of Ibn AsÍr (a.d.1160–1229), supplies the following details: In the year a.d.1024 (H. 414) MahmÚd captured several forts and cities in Hind and he also took the idol called SomanÁtha. This idol was the greatest of all the idols of Hind. At every eclipse28 the Hindus went on pilgrimage to the temple, and there congregated to the number of a hundred thousand persons. According to their doctrine of transmigration the Hindus believe that after separation from the body the souls of men meet at SomanÁtha; and that the ebb and flow of the tide is the worship paid to the best of its power by the sea to the idol.29 All that is most precious in India was brought to SomanÁtha. The temple attendants received the most valuable presents, and the temple was endowed with more than 10,000 villages.30 In the temple were amassed jewels of the most exquisite quality and of incalculable value. The people of India have a great river called Ganga to which they pay the highest honour and into which they cast the bones of their great men, in the belief that the deceased will thus secure an entrance to heaven. Though between this river and SomanÁtha is a distance of about 1200 miles (200 parasangs) water was daily brought from it to wash the idol.31 Every day a thousand BrÁhmans performed the worship and introduced visitors.32 The shaving of the heads and beards of pilgrims employed three hundred barbers.33 Three hundred and fifty persons sang and danced at the gate of the temple,34 every one receiving a settled daily allowance. When MahmÚd was gaining victories and demolishing idols in North India, the Hindus said SomanÁtha is displeased with these idols. If SomanÁtha had been satisfied with them no one could have destroyed or injured them. When MahmÚd heard this he resolved on making a campaign to destroy SomanÁtha, believing that when the Hindus saw their prayers and imprecations to be false and futile they would embrace the Faith.

So he prayed to the Almighty for aid, and with 30,000 horse besides volunteers left Ghazni on the 10th Sha’bÁn (H. 414, a.d.1024).
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SomanÁtha, a.d.1024. He took the road to MultÁn and reached it in the middle of RamzÁn. The road from MultÁn to India lay through a barren desert without inhabitants or food. MahmÚd collected provisions for the passage and loading 30,000 camels with water and corn started for A?ahilavÁ?a. After he had crossed the desert he perceived on one side a fort full of people in which place there were wells.35 The leaders came to conciliate him, but he invested the place, and God gave him victory over it, for the hearts of the people failed them through fear. He brought the place under the sway of IslÁm, killed the inhabitants, and broke in pieces their images. His men carrying water with them marched for A?ahilavÁ?a, where they arrived at the beginning of ZÍlkÁda.

The Chief of A?ahilavÁ?a, called BhÍm, fled hastily, and abandoning his city went to a certain fort for safety and to prepare for war. MahmÚd pushed on for SomanÁtha. On his march he came to several forts in which were many images serving as chamberlains or heralds of SomanÁtha. These MahmÚd called ShaitÁn or devils. He killed the people, destroyed the fortifications, broke the idols in pieces, and through a waterless desert marched to SomanÁtha. In the desert land he met 20,000 fighting men whose chiefs would not submit. He sent troops against them, defeated them, put them to flight, and plundered their possessions. From the desert he marched to DabalwÁrah,36 two days’ journey from SomanÁtha. The people of DabalwÁrah stayed in the city believing that the word of SomanÁtha would drive back the invaders. MahmÚd took the place, slew the men, plundered their property, and marched to SomanÁtha.

Reaching SomanÁtha on a Thursday in the middle of ZÍlkÁda MahmÚd beheld a strong fortress built on the sea-shore, so that its walls were washed by the waves.37 From the walls the people jeered at the MusalmÁns. Our deity, they said, will cut off the last man of you and destroy you all. On the morrow which was Friday the assailants advanced to the assault. When the Hindus saw how the Muhammadans fought they abandoned their posts and left the walls. The MusalmÁns planted their ladders and scaled the walls. From the top they raised their war-cry, and showed the might of IslÁm. Still their loss was so heavy that the issue seemed doubtful. A body of Hindus hurried to SomanÁtha, cast themselves on the ground before him, and besought him to grant them victory. Night came on and the fight was stayed.

Early next morning MahmÚd renewed the battle. His men made greater havoc among the Hindus till they drove them from the town to the house of their idol SomanÁtha. At the gate of the temple the slaughter was dreadful. Band after band of the defenders entered the temple and standing before SomanÁtha with their hands clasped round their necks wept and passionately entreated him. Then they issued forth to fight and fought till they were slain. The few left alive took
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SomanÁtha, a.d.1024. to the sea in boats but the MusalmÁns overtook them and some were killed and some were drowned.

The temple of SomanÁtha rested on fifty-six pillars of teakwood covered with lead.38 The idol was in a dark chamber. The height of the idol was five cubits and its girth three cubits. This was what appeared to the eye; two cubits were hidden in the basement. It had no appearance of being sculptured. MahmÚd seized it, part of it he burnt, and part he carried with him to Ghazni, where he made it a step at the entrance of the Great Mosque.39 The dark shrine was lighted by exquisitely jewelled chandeliers. Near the idol was a chain of gold 200 mans in weight. To the chain bells were fastened. And when each watch of the night was over the chain was shaken and the ringing of the bells roused a fresh party of BrÁhmans to carry on the worship. In the treasury which was near the shrine were many idols of gold and silver. Among the treasures were veils set with jewels, every jewel of immense value. What was found in the temple was worth more than two millions of dinÁrs. Over fifty thousand Hindus were slain.40

After the capture of SomanÁtha, MahmÚd received intelligence that BhÍm the chief of A?ahilavÁ?a had gone to the fort of Khandahat,41 about 240 miles (40 parasangs) from SomanÁtha between that place and the desert. MahmÚd marched to Khandahat. When he came before it he questioned some men who were hunting as to the tide. He learned that the ford was practicable, but that if the wind blew a little the crossing was dangerous. MahmÚd prayed to the Almighty and entered the water. He and his forces passed safely and drove out the enemy. From Khandahat he returned intending to proceed against MansÚra in central Sindh, whose ruler was an apostate Muhammadan. At the news of MahmÚd’s approach the chief fled into the date forests. MahmÚd followed, and surrounding him and his adherents, many of them were slain, many drowned, and few escaped. MahmÚd then went
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SomanÁtha, a.d.1024. to BhÁtiÁ, and after reducing the inhabitants to obedience, returned to Ghazni where he arrived on the 10th Safar 417 H. (a.d.1026).

The Rauzatu-s-safÁ of Mirkhand supplements these details with the following account of MahmÚd’s arrangements for holding GujarÁt: ‘It is related that when SultÁn MahmÚd had achieved the conquest of SomanÁtha he wished to fix his residence there for some years because the country was very extensive and possessed many advantages among them several mines which produced pure gold. Indian rubies were brought from SarandÍp, one of the dependencies of the kingdom of GujarÁt. His ministers represented to MahmÚd that to forsake KhurÁsÁn which had been won from his enemies after so many battles and to make SomanÁtha the seat of government was very improper. At last the king made up his mind to return and ordered some one to be appointed to hold and carry on the administration of the country. The ministers observed that as it was impossible for a stranger to maintain possession he should assign the country to one of the native chiefs. The SultÁn accordingly held a council to settle the nomination, in concurrence with such of the inhabitants as were well disposed towards him. Some of them represented to him that amongst the ancient royal families no house was so noble as that of the DÁbshilÍms of whom only one member survived, and he had assumed the habit of a BrÁhman, and was devoted to philosophical pursuits and austerity.’42

That MahmÚd should have found it necessary to appoint some local chief to keep order in GujarÁt is probable. It is also probable that he would choose some one hostile to the defeated king. It has been suggested above that BhÍma’s uncle Durlabha did not retire but was ousted by his nephew and that the story of Vallabha and Durlabha dying together pointed to some usurpation on the part of BhÍma. The phrase the DÁbshilÍms seems to refer either to Durlabhasena or his son. Whoever was chosen must have lost his power soon after MahmÚd’s departure.43

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
BhÍma I. a.d.1022–1064. BhÍma I. a.d.1022–1064.An inscription at SomanÁtha shows that soon after MahmÚd was gone BhÍmadeva began to build a temple of stone in place of the former temple of brick and wood.

A few years later BhÍma was on bad terms with Dhandhuka the ParamÁra chief of Ábu, and sent his general Vimala to subdue him. Dhandhuka submitted and made over to Vimala the beautiful ChitrakÛ?a peak of Ábu, where, in a.d.1032 (S. 1088), Vimala built the celebrated Jain temples known as Vimalavasahi still one of the glories of Ábu.44

BhÍma had three wives UdayÁmatÍ who built a step-well at A?ahilavÁ?a, BukulÁdevÍ, and another. These ladies were the mothers of Kar?a, KshemarÁja, and MÚlarÁja. Of the three sons MÚlarÁja, though his mother’s name is unknown, was the eldest and the heir-apparent. Of the kindly MÚlarÁja the author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i tells the following tale: In a year of scarcity the Ku?umbikas or cultivators of Vishopaka and Da??Áhi found themselves unable to pay the king his share of the land-produce. BhÍmarÁja sent a minister to inquire and the minister brought before the king all the well-to-do people of the defaulting villages. One day prince MÚlarÁja saw these men talking to one another in alarm. Taking pity on them he pleased the king by his skilful riding. The king asked him to name a boon and the prince begged that the demand on the villagers might be remitted. The boon was granted, the ryots went home in glee, but within three days MÚlarÁja was dead. Next season yielded a bumper harvest, and the people came to present the king with his share for that year as well as with the remitted share for the previous year. BhÍmdev declined to receive the arrears. A jury appointed by the king settled that the royal share of the produce for both years should be placed in the king’s hands for the erection of a temple called the new TripurushaprÁsÁda for the spiritual welfare of prince MÚlarÁja.45

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
BhÍma I. a.d.1022–1064. BhÍma reigned forty-two years. Both the PrabandhachintÁma?i and the VichÁrasre?i mention Kar?a as his successor. According to the DvyÁsraya BhÍma, wishing to retire to a religious life, offered the succession to KshemarÁja. But KshemarÁja also was averse from the labour of ruling and it was settled that Kar?a should succeed.

BhÍma died soon after and KshemarÁja retired to a holy place on the SarasvatÍ named Mundakesvara not far from A?ahilavÁ?a. Kar?a is said to have granted DahithalÍ a neighbouring village to DevaprasÁda the son of KshemarÁja that he might attend on his father in his religious seclusion. But as the KumÁrapÁlacharita mentions KshemarÁja being settled at DahithalÍ as a ruler not as an ascetic it seems probable that DahithalÍ was granted to KshemarÁja for maintenance as villages are still granted to the bhÁyÁs or brethren of the ruler.

Kar?a, a.d.1064–1094.Kar?a who came to the throne in a.d.1064 (S. 1120) had a more peaceful reign than his predecessors. He was able to build charitable public works among them a temple called Kar?a-meru at A?ahilavÁ?a. His only war was an expedition against ÁshÁ Bhil, chief of six lÁkhs46 of Bhils residing at ÁshÁpallÍ the modern village of AsÁval near AhmadÁbÁd.47 ÁshÁ was defeated and slain. In consequence of an omen from a local goddess named Kochharva,48 Kar?a built her a temple in AsÁval and also built temples to JayantÍ DevÍ and Kar?esvara MahÁdeva. He made a lake called Kar?asÁgara and founded a city called Kar?ÁvatÍ which he made his capital.

Kar?a had three ministers MuÑjÁla, SÁntu, and Udaya. Udaya was a SrÍmÁlÍ VÁniÁ of MÁrwÁr, who had settled in A?ahilavÁ?a and who was originally called UdÁ. SÁntu built a Jain temple called SÁntu-vasahi and UdÁ built at Kar?ÁvatÍ a large temple called Udaya-varÁha, containing seventy-two images of Tirthankars, twenty-four past twenty-four present and twenty-four to come. By different wives UdÁ had five sons, Áha?a or Astha?a, ChÁha?a, BÁha?a, Ámbada, and SollÁ, of whom the last three were half brothers of the first two.49 Except SollÁ, who continued a merchant and became very wealthy, all the sons entered the service of the state and rose to high stations during the reign of KumÁrapÁla.

In late life Kar?a married MiyÁ?alladevÍ daughter of Jayakesi son of Subhakesi king of the Kar?Á?aka. According to the DvyÁsraya a wandering painter showed Kar?a the portrait of a princess whom he described as daughter of Jayakesi the Kadamba king50 of
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
Kar?a, a.d.1064–1094. Chandrapura51 in the Dakhan, and who he said had taken a vow to marry Kar?a. In token of her wish to marry Kar?a the painter said the princess had sent Kar?a an elephant. Kar?a went to see the present and found on the elephant a beautiful princess who had come so far in the hope of winning him for a husband. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i Kar?a found the princess ugly and refused to marry her. On this the princess with eight attendants determined to burn themselves on a funeral pyre and UdayÁmatÍ Kar?a’s mother also declared that if he did not relent she too would be a sacrifice. Under this compulsion Kar?a married the princess but refused to treat her as a wife. The minister MuÑjÁla, learning from a kaÑchukÍ or palace-servant that the king loved a certain courtezan, contrived that MiyÁnalladevÍ should take the woman’s place, a device still practised by ministers of native states. Kar?a fell into the snare and the queen became pregnant by him, having secured from the hand of her husband his signet ring as a token which could not be disclaimed. Thus in Kar?a’s old age MiyÁnalladevÍ became the mother of the illustrious SiddharÁja Jayasim?ha, who, according to a local tradition quoted by Mr. Forbes, first saw the light at PÁlanpur.52 When three years old the precocious SiddharÁja climbed and sat upon the throne. This ominous event being brought to the king’s notice he consulted his astrologers who advised that from that day SiddharÁja should be installed as heir-apparent.

The GujarÁt chronicles do not record how or when Kar?a died. It appears from a manuscript that he was reigning in a.d.1089 (S. 1145).53 The HammÍramahÁkÁvya says ‘The illustrious Kar?adeva was killed in battle by king Dussala of SÁkambharÍ,’ and the two appear to have been cotemporaries.54 The author of the DvyÁsraya says that Kar?a died fixing his thoughts on Vish?u, recommending to SiddharÁja his cousin DevaprasÁda son of KshemarÁja. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i VichÁrasre?i and Suk?itasankÍrtana Kar?a died in a.d.1094 (S. 1150).

SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143.As, at the time of his father’s death, SiddharÁja was a minor55 the reins of government must have passed into the hands of his mother MiyÁnalladevÍ. That the succession should have been attended with struggle and intrigue is not strange. According to the DvyÁsraya DevaprasÁda, the son of KshemarÁja burned himself on the funeral pile shortly after the death of Kar?a, an action which was probably the result of some intrigue regarding the succession. Another intrigue
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. ended in the death of MadanapÁla brother of Kar?a’s mother queen UdayÁmatÍ, at the hands of the minister SÁntu, who along with MuÑjÁla and UdÁ, helped the queen-mother MiyÁnalladevÍ during the regency. MuÑjÁla and SÁntu continued in office under SiddharÁja. Another minister built a famous Jain temple named MahÁrÁjabhuvana in Sidhpur at the time when SiddharÁja built the RudramÁlÁ. An inscription from a temple near Bhadresar in Kacch dated a.d.1139 (S. 1195 ÁshÁ?ha Vad 10, Sunday), in recording grants to AudÍchya BrÁhmans to carry on the worship in an old temple of Udalesvara and in a new temple of KumÁrapÁlesvara built by KumÁrapÁla son of the great prince ÁsapÁla,56 notes that DÁdÁka was then minister of SiddharÁja. Among his generals the best known was a chief named Jagaddeva (Jag Dev), commonly believed to be a ParamÁra, many of whose feats of daring are recorded in bardic and popular romances.57 Though Jag Dev is generally called a ParamÁra nothing of his family is on record. The author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i describes Jagaddeva as a thrice valiant warrior held in great respect by SiddharÁja. After SiddharÁja’s death Jagaddeva went to serve king PermÁdi to whose mother’s family he was related.58 PermÁdi gave him a chiefship and sent him to attack MÁlava.

When SiddharÁja attained manhood his mother prepared to go in great state on pilgrimage to SomanÁtha. She went with rich offerings as far as BÁhulo?a apparently the large modern village of BholÁda on the GujarÁt-KÁthiÁvÁ?a frontier about twenty-two miles south-west of DholkÁ. At this frontier town the A?ahilavÁ?a kings levied a tax on all pilgrims to SomanÁtha. Many of the pilgrims unable to pay the tax had to return home in tears. MiyÁnalladevÍ was so saddened by the woes of the pilgrims that she stopped her pilgrimage and returned home. SiddharÁja met her on the way and asked her why she had turned back. MiyÁnalladevÍ said, I will neither eat nor go to SomanÁtha until you order the remission of the pilgrim tax. SiddharÁja called the BholÁda treasurer and found that the levy yielded 72 lÁkhs a year.59 In spite of the serious sacrifice SiddharÁja broke the board authorizing the levy of the tax and pouring water from his hand into his mother’s declared that the merit of the remission was hers. The queen went to SomanÁtha and worshipped the god with gold presenting an elephant and other gifts and handing over her own weight in money.

According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i while MiyÁnalladevÍ and SiddharÁja were on pilgrimage Yasovarman king of MÁlwa continually harassed the Gurjjara-Ma??ala. SÁntu who was in charge of the kingdom asked Yasovarman on what consideration he would retire.
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. Yasovarman said he would retire if SiddharÁja gave up to him the merit of the pilgrimage to Somesvara. SÁntu washed his feet and taking water in his hand surrendered to Yasovarman the merit of SiddharÁja, on which, according to his promise, Yasovarman retired. On his return SiddharÁja asked SÁntu what he meant by transferring his sovereign’s merit to a rival. SÁntu said, ‘If you think my giving Yasovarman your merit has any importance I restore it to you.’60 This curious story seems to be a Jain fiction probably invented with the object of casting ridicule on the BrÁhmanical doctrine of merit. Yasovarman was not a cotemporary of SiddharÁja. The MÁlwa king referred to is probably Yasovarman’s predecessor Naravarman, of whom an inscription dated a.d.1134 (S. 1190) is recorded.61

Under the name Sadharo Jesingh, SiddharÁja’s memory is fresh in GujarÁt as its most powerful, most religious, and most charitable ruler. Almost every old work of architectural or antiquarian interest in GujarÁt is ascribed to SiddharÁja. In inscriptions he is styled The great king of kings, The great lord, The great Bha??Áraka, The lord of AvantÍ, The hero of the three worlds, The conqueror of Barbaraka, The universal ruler Siddha, The illustrious Jayasim?hadeva. Of these the commonest attributes are SiddhachakravartÍn the Emperor of Magic and SiddharÁja the Lord of Magic, titles which seem to claim for the king divine or supernatural powers.62 In connection with his assumption of these titles the KumÁrapÁlaprabandha, the DvyÁsraya, and the PrabandhachintÁma?i tell curious tales. According to the DvyÁsraya, the king wandering by night had subdued the BhÚtas, SÁkinÍs, and other spirits. He had also learnt many mantras or charms. From what he saw at night he would call people in the day time and say ‘You have such a cause of uneasiness’ or ‘You have such a comfort.’ Seeing that he knew their secrets the people thought that the king knew the hearts of all men and must be the avatÁra of some god. A second story tells how SiddharÁja helped a NÁga prince and princess whom he met by night on the SarasvatÍ.63 According to a third story told in the KumÁrapÁlaprabandha two YoginÍs or nymphs came from the HimÁlayas and asked the king by what mystic powers he justified the use of the title SiddharÁja. The king agreed to perform some wonders in open court in the presence of the nymphs. With the help of a former minister, HaripÁla, the king had a dagger prepared whose blade was of sugar and its handle of iron set with jewels. When the king appeared in court to perform the promised wonders a deputation of ambassadors from king PermÁdi of KalyÁnaka?aka64 was
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. announced. The deputation entered and presented the prepared dagger as a gift from their lord. The king kept the prepared dagger and in its stead sent all round the court a real dagger which was greatly admired. After the real dagger had been seen and returned the king said: I will use this dagger to show my mystic powers, and in its place taking the false dagger ate its sugar blade. When the blade was eaten the minister stopped the king and said Let the YoginÍs eat the handle. The king agreed and as the YoginÍs failed to eat the handle which was iron the superiority of the king’s magic was proved.

A fourth story in the DvyÁsraya tells that when the king was planning an invasion of MÁlwa a YoginÍ came from Ujjain to Patan and said ‘O RÁja, if you desire great fame, come to Ujjain and humbly entreat KÁlika and other YoginÍs and make friends with Yasovarman the RÁja of Ujjain.’ The king contemptuously dismissed her, saying, ‘If you do not fly hence like a female crow, I will cut off your nose and ears with this sword.’

So also the king’s acts of prowess and courage were believed to be due to magical aid. According to the common belief SiddharÁja did his great acts of heroism by the help of a demon named BÁbaro, whom he is said to have subdued by riding on a corpse in a burying ground. The story in the PrabandhachintÁma?i is similar to that told of the father of Harshavardhana who subdued a demon with the help of a YogÍ. It is notable that the story had passed into its present form within a hundred years of SiddharÁja’s death. Somesvara in his KÍrtikaumudÍ says, ‘This moon of kings fettered the prince of goblins Barbaraka in a burial-place, and became known among the crowd of kings as SiddharÁja.’ Older records show that the origin of the story, at least of the demon’s name, is historical being traceable to one of SiddharÁja’s copperplate attributes Barbaraka-jish?u that is conqueror of Barbaraka. The DvyÁsrayakosha represents this Barbara as a leader of RÁkshasas or Mlechhas, who troubled the BrÁhmans at SrÍsthala-Siddhapura. Jayasim?ha conquered him and spared his life at the instance of his wife Pin?galikÁ. Afterwards Barbara gave valuable presents to Jayasim?ha and ‘served him as other RÁjputs.’65 Barbaraka
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. seems to be the name of a tribe of non-Áryans whose modern representatives are the BÁbariÁs settled in South KÁthiÁvÁ?a in the province still known as BÁbariÁvÁ?a.

A Dohad inscription of the time of SiddharÁja dated a.d.1140 (S. 1196) says of his frontier wars: ‘He threw into prison the lords of SurÁsh?ra and MÁlwa; he destroyed SindhurÁja and other kings; he made the kings of the north bear his commands.’ The SurÁsh?ra king referred to is probably a ruler of the ÁhÍr or ChÚ?ÁsamÁ tribe
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. whose head-quarters were at JunÁga?h. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i SiddharÁja went in person to subdue Noghan or Navaghani the ÁhÍr ruler of SurÁsh?ra; he came to VardhamÁnapura that is VadhvÁn and from VadhvÁn attacked and slew Noghan. JinaprabhasÚri the author of the TÍrthakalpa says of GirnÁr that Jayasim?ha killed the king named KhengÁr and made one Sajjana his viceroy in SurÁsh?ra. So many traditions remain regarding wars with KhengÁr that it seems probable that SiddharÁja led separate expeditions against more than one king of that name. According to tradition the origin of the war with KhengÁr was a woman named RÁ?akadevÍ whom KhengÁra had married. RÁnakadevÍ was the daughter of a potter of MajevÁdi village about nine miles north of JunÁga?h, so famous for her beauty that SiddharÁja determined to marry her. Meanwhile she had accepted an offer from KhengÁr whose subject she was and had married him. SiddharÁja enraged at her marriage advanced against KhengÁr, took him prisoner, and annexed Sorath. That KhengÁr’s kingdom was annexed and Sajjana, mentioned by JinaprabhasÚri, was appointed Viceroy is proved by a GirnÁr inscription dated a.d.1120 (S. 1176).

An era called the Sim?ha Sam?vatsara connected with the name of Jayasim?ha and beginning with a.d.1113–1114 (S. 1169–70), occurs in several inscriptions found about PrabhÁsa and South KÁthiÁvÁ?a. This era was probably started in that year in honour of this conquest of KhengÁr and Sorath.66 The earliest known mention of the Sim?ha Sam?vatsara era occurs in a step-well at MÁngrol called the Sodhali VÁv. The inscription is of the time of KumÁrapÁla and mentions Sahajiga the father of MÚlaka the grantor as a member of the bodyguard of the ChÁlukyas. The inscription states that Sahajiga had several sons able to protect SaurÁsh?ra, one of whom was SomarÁja who built the temple of Sahajigesvara, in the enclosure of the SomanÁtha temple at PrabhÁsa; another was MÚlaka the nÁyaka of SurÁsh?ra, who is recorded to have made grants for the worship of the god by establishing cesses in Mangalapura or MÁngrol and other places. The inscription is dated a.d.1146 (Monday the 13th of the dark half of AsvÍn Vikrama S. 1202 and Sim?ha S. 32). This inscription supports the view that the Sim?ha era was established by Jayasim?ha, since if the era belonged to some other local chief, no ChÁlukya viceroy would adopt it. The Sim?ha era appears to have been kept up in GujarÁt so long as A?ahilapura rule lasted. The well known VerÁval inscription of the time of Arju?adeva is dated Hijri 662, Vikrama S. 1320, Valabhi S. 945, Sim?ha S. 151, Sunday the 13th of ÁshÁ?ha Vadi. This inscription shows that the Sim?ha era was in use for a century and a half during the sovereignty of A?ahilavÁ?a in SurÁsh?ra.

Regarding Sajjana SiddharÁja’s first viceroy in SurÁsh?ra, the PrabandhachintÁma?i says that finding him worthy the king appointed Sajjana the da??Ádhipati of SurÁsh?radesa. Without consulting his master Sajjana spent three years’ revenue in building a stone temple of
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. NeminÁtha on GirnÁr instead of a wooden temple which he removed. In the fourth year the king sent four officers to bring Sajjana to A?ahilavÁ?a. The king called on Sajjana to pay the revenues of the past three years. In reply Sajjana asked whether the king would prefer the revenue in cash or the merit which had accrued from spending the revenue in building the temple. Preferring the merit the king sanctioned the spending of the revenues on the TÍrtha and Sajjana was reappointed governor of Sorath.67 This stone temple of Sajjana would seem to be the present temple of NeminÁtha, though many alterations have been made in consequence of Muhammadan sacrilege and a modern enclosure has been added. The inscription of Sajjana which is dated a.d.1120 (S. 1176) is on the inside to the right in passing to the small south gate. It contains little but the mention of the SÁdhu who was Sajjana’s constant adviser. On his return from a second pilgrimage to SomanÁtha SiddharÁja who was encamped near Raivataka that is GirnÁr expressed a wish to see Sajjana’s temple. But the BrÁhmans envious of the Jains persuaded the king that as GirnÁr was shaped like a lin?g it would be sacrilege to climb it. SiddharÁja respected this objection and worshipped at the foot of the mountain. From GirnÁr he went to SatruÑjaya. Here too BrÁhmans with drawn swords tried to prevent the king ascending the hill. SiddharÁja went in disguise at night, worshipped the Jain god ÁdÍsvara with Ganges water, and granted the god twelve neighbouring villages. On the hill he saw so luxuriant a growth of the sÁllaki a plant dear to elephants, that he proposed to make the hill a breeding place for elephants a second Vindhya. He was reminded what damage wild elephants would cause to the holy place and for this reason abandoned his plan.

SiddharÁja’s second and greater war was with MÁlwa. The cotemporary kings of MÁlwa were the ParamÁra ruler Naravarman who flourished from a.d.1104 to 1133 (S. 1160–1189) and his son and successor Yasovarman who ruled up to a.d.1143 (S. 1199) the year of SiddharÁja’s death As the names of both these kings occur in different accounts of this war, and, as the war is said to have lasted twelve years, it seems that fighting began in the time of Naravarman and that SiddharÁja’s final victory was gained in the time of Yasovarman in SiddharÁja’s old age about a.d.1134 (S. 1190). This view is supported by the local story that his expedition against Yasovarman was undertaken while SiddharÁja was building the Sahasralin?ga lake and other religious works. It is not known how the war arose but the statement of the PrabandhachintÁma?i that SiddharÁja vowed to make a scabbard of Yasovarman’s skin seems to show that SiddharÁja received grave provocation. SiddharÁja is said to have left the building of the Sahasralin?ga lake to the masons and architects and himself to have
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. started for MÁlwa. The war dragged on and there seemed little hope of victory when news reached SiddharÁja that the three south gates of DhÁrÁ could be forced. With the help of an elephant an entrance was effected. Yasovarman was captured and bound with six ropes, and, with his captured enemy as his banner of victory, SiddharÁja returned to A?ahilapura. He remembered his vow, but being prevented from carrying it out, he took a little of Yasovarman’s skin and adding other skin to it made a scabbard. The captured king was thenceforward kept in a cage. It was this complete conquest and annexation of MÁlwa that made SiddharÁja assume the style of AvantÍnÁtha ‘Lord of AvantÍ,’ which is mentioned as his biru?a or title in most of the Chaulukya copperplates.68 MÁlwa henceforward remained subject to A?ahilavÁ?a. On the return from MÁlwa an army of BhÍls who tried to block the way were attacked by the minister SÁntu and put to flight.

SiddharÁja’s next recorded war is with king Madanavarman the Chandela king of Mahobaka the modern MahobÁ in Bundelkhand. Madanavarman, of whom General Cunningham has found numerous inscriptions dating from a.d.1130 to 1164 (S. 1186–1220),69 was one of the most famous kings of the Chandela dynasty. An inscription of one of his successors in KÁlanjar fort records that Madanavarman ‘in an instant defeated the king of Gurjjara, as K?ish?a in former times defeated Kam?sa,70 a statement which agrees with the GujarÁt accounts of the war between him and Jayasim?ha. In this conflict the GujarÁt accounts do not seem to show that SiddharÁja gained any great victory; he seems to have been contented with a money present. The KÍrtikaumudÍ states that the king of Mahobaka honoured SiddharÁja as his guest and paid a fine and tribute by way of hospitality. The account in the KumÁrapÁlacharita suggests that SiddharÁja was compelled to come to terms and make peace. According to the KÍrtikaumudÍ, and this seems likely, SiddharÁja went from DhÁrÁ to KÁlanjara. The account in the PrabandhachintÁma?i is very confused. According to the KumÁrapÁlacharita, on SiddharÁja’s way back from DhÁrÁ at his camp near Patan a bard came to the court and said to the king that his court was as wonderful as the court of Madanavarman. The bard said that Madanavarman was the king of the city of Mahobaka and most clever, wise, liberal, and pleasure-loving. The king sent a courtier to test the truth of the bard’s statement. The courtier returned after six months declaring that the bard’s account was in no way exaggerated. Hearing this SiddharÁja at once started against Mahobaka and encamping within sixteen miles of the city sent his minister to summon Madanavarman to surrender. Madanavarman who was enjoying himself took little notice of the minister. This king, he said, is the same who had to fight twelve years with DhÁrÁ; if, as is probable, since he is a kabÁdi or wild king, he wants money, pay him what he wants. The money
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. was paid. But SiddharÁja was so struck with Madanavarman’s indifference that he would not leave until he had seen him. Madanavarman agreed to receive him. SiddharÁja went with a large bodyguard to the royal garden which contained a palace and enclosed pleasure-house and was guarded by troops. Only four of SiddharÁja’s guards were allowed to enter. With these four men SiddharÁja went in, was shown the palace garden and pleasure-houses by Madanavarman, was treated with great hospitality, and on his return to Patan was given a guard of 120 men.

The DvyÁsraya says that after his conquest of Ujjain SiddharÁja seized and imprisoned the king of a neighbouring country named Sim. We have no other information on this point.

The Dohad inscription dated a.d.1140 mentions the destruction of SindhurÁja that is the king of Sindh and other kings. The KÍrtikaumudÍ also mentions the binding of the lord of Sindhu. Nothing is known regarding the Sindh war. The KÍrtikaumudÍ mentions that after a war with Ar?orÁja king of SÁmbhar SiddharÁja gave his daughter to Ar?orÁja. This seems to be a mistake as the war and alliance with Ar?orÁja belong to KumÁrapÁla’s reign.

SiddharÁja, who like his ancestors was a Saiva, showed his zeal for the faith by constructing the two grandest works in GujarÁt the RudramahÁlaya at Sidhpur and the Sahasralin?ga lake at Patan. The Jain chroniclers always try to show that SiddharÁja was favourably inclined to Jainism. But several of his acts go against this claim and some even show a dislike of the Jains. It is true that the Jain sage HemÁchÁrya lived with the king, but the king honoured him as a scholar rather than as a Jain. On the occasion of the pilgrimage to SomanÁtha the king offered HemÁchÁrya a palanquin, and, as he would not accept the offer but kept on walking, the king blamed him calling him a learned fool with no worldly wisdom. Again on one occasion while returning from MÁlwa SiddharÁja encamped at a place called SrÍnagara, where the people had decorated their temples with banners in honour of the king. Finding a banner floating over a Jain temple the king asked in anger who had placed it there, as he had forbidden the use of banners on Jain shrines and temples in GujarÁt. On being told that it was a very old shrine dating from the time of Bharata, the king ordered that at the end of a year the banner might be replaced. This shows the reverse of a leaning to Jainism. Similarly, according to the PrabandhachintÁma?i, HemÁchÁrya never dared to speak to the king in favour of Jainism but used to say that all religions were good. This statement is supported by the fact that the opening verses of all works written by HemÁchÁrya in the time of SiddharÁja contain no special praise of Jain deities.

So great is SiddharÁja’s fame as a builder that almost every old work in GujarÁt is ascribed to him. Tradition gives him the credit of the Dabhoi fort which is of the time of the VÁghelÁ king VÍradhavala, a.d.1220–1260. The PrabandhachintÁma?i gives this old verse regarding SiddharÁja’s public works: ‘No one makes a great temple (RudramahÁlaya), a great pilgrimage (to SomanÁtha), a great ÁsthÁna (darbÁr hall), or a great lake (Sahasralin?ga)
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. such as SiddharÁja made.’71 Of these the RudramahÁlaya, though very little is left, from its size and the beauty of its carving, must have been a magnificent work the grandest specimen of the architecture of the Solan?ki period. The remains of the Sahasralin?ga lake at A?ahilapura show that it must have been a work of surprising size and richness well deserving its title of mahÁsarah? or great lake. Numerous other public works are ascribed to SiddharÁja.72

At this period it seems that the kings of GujarÁt SÁmbhar and other districts, seeing the great reputation which his literary tastes had gained for Bhoja of DhÁrÁ used all to keep Pandits. Certain carvings on the pillars of a mosque at the south-west of the modern town of DhÁrÁ show that the building almost as it stands was the Sanskrit school founded by Bhoja. The carvings in question are beautifully cut Sanskrit grammar tables. Other inscriptions in praise of Naravarman show that Bhoja’s successors continued to maintain the institution. In the floor of the mosque are many large shining slabs of black marble, the largest as much as seven feet long, all of them covered with inscriptions so badly mutilated that nothing can be made out of them except that they were Sanskrit and Prakrit verses in honour of some prince. On a rough estimate the slabs contain as many as 4000 verses.73 According to the old saying any one who drank of the SarasvatÍ well in DhÁrÁ became a scholar. SarasvatÍ’s well still exists near the mosque. Its water is good and it is still known as Akkal-kui or the Well of Talent. As in DhÁrÁ so in Ajmir the A?hÁÍ-dinkÁ Jhop?Á mosque is an old Sanskrit school, recent excavations having brought to light slabs with entire dramas carved on them. So also the GujarÁt kings had their Pandits and their halls of learning. SrÍpÁla, SiddharÁja’s poet-laureate, wrote a poetical eulogium or prasasti on the Sahasralin?ga lake. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i SiddharÁja gathered numerous Pandits to examine the eulogium. As has already been noticed SiddharÁja’s constant companion was the great scholar and Jain ÁchÁrya Hemachandra also called HemÁchÁrya, who, under the king’s patronage, wrote a treatise on grammar called Siddhahema, and also the well-known DvyÁsrayakosha which was intended to teach both grammar and the history of the Solan?kis. Hemachandra came into even greater
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
SiddharÁja Jayasingha, a.d.1094–1143. prominence in the time of KumÁrapÁla, when he wrote several further works and became closely connected with the state religion. Several stories remain of SiddharÁja assembling poets, and holding literary and poetic discussions.

Record is preserved of a sabhÁ or assembly called by the king to hear discussions between a SvetÁmbara Jaina ÁchÁrya named Bha??Áraka DevasÚri and a Digambara Jaina ÁchÁrya named Kumudachandra who had come from the Kar?Á?ak. DevasÚri who was living and preaching in the Jain temple of Arish?anemi at Kar?ÁvatÍ,74 that is the modern AhmadÁbÁd, was there visited by Kumudachandra. DevasÚri treated his visitor with little respect telling him to go to Patan and he would follow and hold a religious discussion or vÁda. Kumudachandra being a Digambara or skyclad Jaina went naked to Patan and SiddharÁja honoured him because he came from his mother’s country. SiddharÁja asked Hemachandra to hold a discussion with Kumudachandra and Hemachandra recommended that DevasÚri should be invited as a worthy disputant. At a discussion held before a meeting called by the king Kumudachandra was vanquished, probably because the first principle of his Digambara faith that no woman can attain nirvÁ?a, was insulting to the queen-mother, and the second that no clothes-wearing Jain can gain mukti or absorption, was an insult to the Jain ministers. The assembly, like BrÁhmanical sabhÁs at the present day, appears to have declined into noise and SiddharÁja had to interfere and keep order. DevasÚri was complimented by the king and taken by one Áhada with great honour to his newly built Jaina temple.75

KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174.In spite of prayers to SomanÁtha, of incantations, and of gifts to BrÁhmans, SiddharÁja Jayasim?ha had no son. The throne passed into the line of TribhuvanapÁla the great-grandson of BhÍmadeva I. (a.d.1074–62) who was ruling as a feudatory of SiddharÁja at his ancestral appanage of DahithalÍ. TribhuvanapÁla’s pedigree is BhÍmadeva I.; his son KshemarÁja by BakulÁdevÍ a concubine; his son HaripÁla; his son TribhuvanapÁla. By his queen KÁsmÍradevÍ TribhuvanapÁla had three sons MahÍpÁla, KÍrttipÁla, and KumÁrapÁla, and two daughters PremaladevÍ and DevaladevÍ. PremaladevÍ was married to one of SiddharÁja’s nobles a cavalry general named KÁnhada or K?ish?adeva: DevaladevÍ was married to Ar?orÁja76 or AnarÁja
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. king of SÁkambhari or SÁmbhar, the Ánalladeva of the HammÍramahÁkÁvya. KumÁrapÁla himself was married by his father to one BhupÁladevÍ. According to the DvyÁsraya, TribhuvanapÁla was on good terms with SiddharÁja serving him and going with him to war. The KumÁrapÁlacharita also states that KumÁrapÁla used to attend the court of SiddharÁja. But from the time he came to feel that he would have no son and that the bastard KumÁrapÁla would succeed him SiddharÁja became embittered against KumÁrapÁla. According to the Jain chronicles SiddharÁja was told by the god SomanÁtha, by the sage Hemachandra, by the goddess AmbikÁ of KodinÁr,77 and by astrologers that he would have no son and that KumÁrapÁla would be his successor. According to the KumÁrapÁlacharita so bitter did his hate grow that SiddharÁja planned the death of TribhuvanapÁla and his family including KumÁrapÁla. TribhuvanapÁla was murdered but KumÁrapÁla escaped. Grieved at this proof of the king’s hatred KumÁrapÁla consulted his brother-in-law K?ish?adeva who advised him to leave his family at DahithalÍ and go into exile promising to keep him informed of what went on at A?ahilapura. KumÁrapÁla left in the disguise of a ja?ÁdhÁri or recluse and escaped the assassins whom the king had ordered to slay him. After some time KumÁrapÁla returned and in spite of his disguise was recognized by the guards. They informed the king who invited all the ascetics in the city to a dinner. KumÁrapÁla came but noticing that the king recognized him in spite of his disguise, he fled. The king sent a trusted officer with a small force in pursuit. KumÁrapÁla persuaded some husbandmen, the chief of whom was BhÍmasim?ha, to hide him in a heap of thorns. The pursuers failing to find him returned. At night KumÁrapÁla was let out bleeding from the thorns, and promised the husbandmen that the day would come when their help would be rewarded. He then shaved his topknot or ja?Á and while travelling met with a lady named DevasrÍ of Udambara village who pitying him took him into her chariot and gave him food. KumÁrapÁla promised to regard her as a sister. He then came to DahithalÍ where the royal troops had already arrived. SiddharÁja sent an army which invested the village leaving KumÁrapÁla without means of escape. He went to a potter named Sajjana or Alin?ga who hid him in the flues of his brick-kiln throwing hay over him. The troops searched the village, failed to find KumÁrapÁla, and retired. The potter then helped KumÁrapÁla from his hiding place and fed him. A former friend named Bosari joined KumÁrapÁla and they went away together KumÁrapÁla commending his family to the care of Sajjana. On the first day they had no food. Next day Bosari went to beg and they together ate the food given to Bosari in a monastery or ma?h where they slept. In time they came to Cambay where they called upon HemÁchÁrya and asked him their future. HemÁchÁrya knew and recognized KumÁrapÁla. KumÁrapÁla asked when fate would bless him. Before HemÁchÁrya
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. could reply Udayana, one of the king’s ministers, came. HemÁchÁrya said to Udayana, ‘This is KumÁrapÁla who shall shortly be your king.’ HemÁchÁrya also gave KumÁrapÁla a writing stating that he would succeed to the throne. KumÁrapÁla acknowledged his obligations to HemÁchÁrya and promised to follow his advice. Udayana took him to his house and gave him food and clothes. SiddharÁja came to know of this and sent his soldiers who began to search. KumÁrapÁla returned to HemÁchÁrya who hid him in a cellar covering its door with manuscripts and palm leaves. The soldiers came but failed to search under the manuscripts and returned. KumÁrapÁla acknowledged his obligations to HemÁchÁrya and said he owed him two great debts one for telling him the day on which he would come to the throne; the other for saving his life. KumÁrapÁla left Cambay at midnight, the minister Udayana supplying him with provisions. From Cambay he went to Va?apadrapura probably Baroda, where feeling hungry he entered the shop of a VÁnia named Katuka and asked for parched gram. The VÁnia gave the gram and seeing that KumÁrapÁla had no money accepted his promise of future payment. From Baroda he came to Bhrigukachh or Broach where he saw a soothsayer and asked him his future. The soothsayer, seeing the bird kali-devÍ perched on the temple flagstaff, said ‘You will shortly be king.’ KumÁrapÁla shaved his matted hair and went from Broach to Ujjain where he met his family. But as here too the royal troops followed him he fled to KolhÁpura where he came across a YogÍ who foretold his succession to a throne and gave him two spells or man?ras. From KolhÁpura KumÁrapÁla went to KÁÑchÍ or Conjeveram and from there to the city of KÁlambapattana.78 The king of KÁlambapattana PratÁpasim?ha received him like an elder brother and brought him into his city, built a temple of Sivananda KumÁrapÁlesvara in his honour, and even issued a coin called a KumÁrapÁla. From KÁlambapattana KumÁrapÁla went to ChitrakÚ?a or Chitor and from there to Ujjain whence he took his family to Siddhapura going on alone to A?ahilapura to see his brother-in-law K?ish?adeva. According to the VichÁrasre?i SiddharÁja died soon after in a.d.1143 on the 3rd of KÁrttika Suddha Sam?vat 1199.

In the dissensions that followed the king’s death KumÁrapÁla’s interests were well served by his brother-in-law K?ish?adeva. Eventually the names of three candidates, KumÁrapÁla and two others, were laid before the state nobles sitting in council to determine who should be king. Of the three candidates the two others were found wanting, and KumÁrapÁla was chosen and installed according to the VichÁrasre?i on the 4th of MÁrgasÍrsha Suddha and according to the KumÁrapÁlaprabandha on the 4th of MÁrgasÍrsha Vadhya. At the time of his succession, according to the PrabandhachintÁma?i and the KumÁrapÁlaprabandha, KumÁrapÁla was about fifty years of age.

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. On his accession KumÁrapÁla installed his wife BhupÁladevÍ his anointed queen or pattarÁni; appointed Udayana who had befriended him at Cambay minister; BÁha?a or VÁgbha?a son of Udayana79 chief councillor or mahÁmÁtya; and Alin?ga second councillor or mahÁpradhÁna. Áhada or Árabha??a, apparently another son of Udayana, did not acknowledge KumÁrapÁla and went over to Ar?orÁja ÁnÁka or Ano king of SapÁdalaksha or the SÁmbhar territory who is probably the same as the Ánalladeva of the HammÍramahÁkÁvya.80

The potter Sajjana was rewarded with a grant of seven hundred villages near ChitrakÚ?a or Chito?a fort in RÁjputÁna, and the author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i notices that in his time the descendants of the potter ashamed of their origin called themselves descendants of Sagara. BhÍmasim?ha who hid KumÁrapÁla in the thorns was appointed head of the bodyguard; DevasrÍ made the sister’s mark on the royal forehead at the time of KumÁrapÁla’s installation and was granted the village of Devayo;81 and Katuka the VÁniÁ of Baroda, who had given KumÁrapÁla parched gram was granted the village of Va?apadra or Baroda. Bosari KumÁrapÁla’s chief companion was given LÁ?ama?dala, which seems to mean that he was appointed viceroy of LÁ?a or South GujarÁt.

Kanhada or K?ish?adeva KumÁrapÁla’s brother-in-law and adviser overvaluing his great services became arrogant and disobedient insulting the king in open court. As remonstrance was of no avail the king had K?ish?adeva waylaid and beaten by a band of athletes and taken almost dying to his wife the king’s sister. From this time all the state officers were careful to show ready obedience.

The old ministry saw that under so capable and well served a ruler their power was gone. They accordingly planned to slay the king and place their own nominee on the throne. The king heard of the plot: secured the assassins: and employed them in murdering the conspirators. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i, Áhada or Árabha??a who had gone over to the SÁmbhar king and was in charge of the SÁmbhar infantry, bribed the local nobles as a preliminary to a war which he had planned against KumÁrapÁla. He so far succeeded as to bring Ána or ÁnÁka the SÁmbhar king with the whole of his army to the borders of GujarÁt to fight KumÁrapÁla. KumÁrapÁla went to meet ÁnÁka. But, in consequence of intrigues, in the battle that followed the GujarÁt army did not obey orders. KumÁrapÁla advanced in front on an elephant, and BÁha?a trying to climb on KumÁrapÁla’s elephant was thrown to the ground and slain. ÁnÁka was also pierced with arrows and the SÁmbhar army was defeated and plundered of its horses.82

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. The DvyÁsraya, probably by the aid of the author’s imagination, gives a fuller account of this war. One fact of importance recorded in the DvyÁsraya is that ÁnÁka though defeated was not slain, and, to bring hostilities to an end, gave his daughter Jalha?Á to KumÁrapÁla in marriage.83 The KumÁrapÁlacharita calls the SÁmbhar king Ar?orÁja and says that it was KumÁrapÁla who invaded the SÁmbhar territory. According to this account KumÁrapÁla went to ChandrÁvatÍ near Ábu and taking its ParamÁra king Vikramasim?ha with him marched to SÁkambhari or SÁmbhar and fought Ar?orÁja who was defeated but not killed. KumÁrapÁla threatened to cut out Ar?orÁja’s tongue but let him go on condition that his people wore a headdress with a tongue on each side. Ar?orÁja is said to have been confined in a cage for three days and then reinstalled as KumÁrapÁla’s feudatory. Vikramasim?ha of ChandrÁvatÍ, who in the battle had sided with Ar?orÁja, was punished by being disgraced before the assembled seventy-two feudatories at A?ahilavÁ?a and was sent to prison, his throne being given to his nephew Yasodhavala. After his victory over Ar?orÁja KumÁrapÁla fought, defeated, and, according to the KÍrtikaumudÍ, beheaded BallÁla king of MÁlwa who had invaded GujarÁt. The result of this contest seems to have been to reduce MÁlwa to its former position of dependence on the A?ahilavÁ?a kings. More than one inscription of KumÁrapÁla’s found in the temple of UdayÁditya as far north as Udayapura near Bhilsa shows that he conquered the whole of MÁlwa, as the inscriptions are recorded by one who calls himself KumÁrapÁla’s general or da??anÁyaka.84

Another of KumÁrapÁla’s recorded victories is over MallikÁrjuna said to be king of the Konkan who we know from published lists of the North Konkan SilÁhÁras flourished about a.d.1160. The author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i says this war arose from a bard of king MallikÁrjuna speaking of him before king KumÁrapÁla as RÁjapitÁmaha or grandfather of kings.85 KumÁrapÁla annoyed at so arrogant a title looked around. Ámba?Á,86 one of the sons of Udayana, divining the king’s meaning, raised his folded hands to his forehead and expressed his readiness to fight MallikÁrjuna. The king sent him with an army which marched to the Konkan without halting. At the crossing of the KalÁvinÍ it was met and defeated by MallikÁrjuna. Ámba?Á returned in disgrace and shrouding himself, his umbrella and his tents in crape retreated to A?ahilavÁ?a. The king finding Ámbada though humiliated ready to make a second venture gave him a larger and better appointed force. With this army Ámba?Á again started for the Konkan, crossed the KalÁvinÍ, attacked MallikÁrjuna, and in a hand-to-hand fight
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. climbed his elephant and cut off his head. This head cased in gold with other trophies of the war he presented to the king on his triumphant return to A?ahilapura. The king was greatly pleased and gave Ámba?Á the title of RÁjapitÁmaha. Of this MallikÁrjuna two stone inscriptions have been found one at ChiplÚn dated a.d.1156 (Saka 1078) the other at Bassein dated a.d.1160 (Saka 1082). If the story that MallikÁrjuna was slain is true the war must have taken place during the two years between a.d.1160 and 1162 (Saka 1082, 1084) which latter is the earliest known date of MallikÁrjuna’s successor AparÁditya.

The KumÁrapÁlacharita also records a war between KumÁrapÁla and Samara king of SurÁsh?ra or south KÁthiÁvÁ?a, the GujarÁt army being commanded by KumÁrapÁla’s minister Udayana. The PrabandhachintÁma?i gives Sausara as the name of the SurÁsh?ra king87: possibly he was some GohilvÁd Mehr chief. Udayana came with the army to VadhwÁn, and letting it advance went to PÁlitÁna. While he was worshipping at PÁlitÁna, a mouse carried away the burning wick of the lamp. Reflecting on the risk of fire in a wooden temple Udayana determined to rebuild the temple of stone. In the fight with Sausara the GujarÁt army was defeated and Udayana was mortally wounded.88 Before Udayana died he told his sons that he had meant to repair the temple of ÁdÍsvara on SatruÑjaya and the SakunikÁ VihÁra at Broach and also to build steps up the west face of GirnÁr. His sons BÁha?a and Ámba?Á promised to repair the two shrines. Subsequently both shrines were restored, KumÁrapÁla and HemÁchÁrya and the council of A?ahilapura attending at the installation of Suv?ittinÁtha in the SakunikÁ VihÁra. The GirnÁr steps were also cut, according to more than one inscription in a.d.1166 (S. 1222).89 This war and Udayana’s death must have occurred about a.d.1149 (S. 1205) as the temple of ÁdnÁtha was finished in a.d.1156–57 (S. 1211). BÁha?a also established near SatruÑjaya a town called BÁha?apura and adorned it with a temple called TribhuvanapÁlavasati.90 After the fight with Sausara KumÁrapÁla was threatened with another war by Kar?a91 king of DÁhala or Chedi. Spies informed the king of the
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. impending invasion as he was starting on a pilgrimage to SomanÁtha. Next day he was relieved from anxiety by the news that while sleeping on an elephant at night king Kar?a’s necklace became entangled in the branch of a banyan tree, and the elephant suddenly running away, the king was strangled.

The PrabandhachintÁma?i records an expedition against SÁmbhar which was entrusted to ChÁha?a a younger brother of BÁha?a. Though ChÁha?a was known to be extravagant, the king liked him, and after giving him advice placed him in command. On reaching SÁmbhar ChÁha?a invested the fort of BÁbrÁnagar but did not molest the people as on that day 700 brides had to be married.92 Next day the fort was entered, the city was plundered, and the supremacy of KumÁrapÁla was proclaimed. This BÁbrÁnagar has not been identified. There appears to be some confusion and the place may not be in SÁmbhar but in BÁbariÁvÁ?a in KÁthiÁvÁ?a. ChÁha?a returned triumphant to Patan. The king expressed himself pleased but blamed ChÁha?a for his lavish expenditure and conferred on him the title of RÁja-gharatta the King-grinder.

Though the GujarÁt chronicles give no further details an inscription in the name of KumÁrapÁla in a temple at Udepur near Bhilsa dated a.d.1166 records that on Monday, Akshaya tritiyÁ the 3rd of VaisÁkh Sud (S. 1222), Thakkara ChÁha?a granted half the village of SangavÁ?a in the RangÁrikÁ district or bhukti. Just below this inscription is a second also bearing the name of KumÁrapÁla. The year is lost. But the occasion is said to be an eclipse on Thursday the 15th of Paush Sudi when a gift was made to the god of Udayapura by Yasodhavala the viceroy of KumÁrapÁla.93

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. Similar inscriptions of KumÁrapÁla’s time and giving his name occur near the ruined town of KerÁdu or KirÁ?a-KÚpa near BÁlmer in Western RÁjputÁna. The inscriptions show that KumÁrapÁla had another AmÁtya or minister there, and that the kings of the country round KerÁdu had been subject to GujarÁt since the time of SiddharÁja Jayasim?ha. Finally the inscription of KumÁrapÁla found by Colonel Tod in a temple of Brahma on the pinnacle of Chito?a fort94 shows that his conquests extended as far as MewÁ?a.

According to the KumÁrapÁlachintÁma?i KumÁrapÁla married one PadmÁvatÍ of Padmapura. The chronicler describes the city as to the west of the Indus. Perhaps the lady belonged to Padmapura, a large town in KashmÍr. Considering his greatness as a king and conqueror the historical record of KumÁrapÁla is meagre and incomplete. Materials may still come to light which will show his power to have been surprisingly widespread.

Mr. Forbes95 records the following BrÁhmanical tradition of a MewÁ?a queen of KumÁrapÁla, which has probably been intentionally omitted by the Jain chroniclers.

KumÁrapÁla, says the BrÁhman tradition, had wedded a SisodanÍ RÁni, a daughter of the house of MewÁ?a. At the time that the sword went for her the SisodanÍ heard that the RÁja had made a vow that his wives should receive initiation into the Jain religion at HemÁchÁrya’s convent before entering the palace. The RÁni refused to start for Patan until she was satisfied she would not be called on to visit the ÁchÁrya’s convent. Jayadeva KumÁrapÁla’s household bard became surety and the queen consented to go to A?ahilapura. Several days after her arrival HemÁchÁrya said to the RÁja ‘The SisodanÍ RÁni has never come to visit me.’ KumÁrapÁla told her she must go. The RÁni refused and fell ill, and the bard’s wives went to see her. Hearing her story they disguised her as one of themselves and brought her privately home to their house. At night the bard dug a hole in the wall of the city, and taking the RÁni through the hole started with her for MewÁ?a. When KumÁrapÁla became aware of the RÁni’s flight he set off in pursuit with two thousand horse. He came up with the fugitives about fifteen miles from the fort of Idar. The bard said to the RÁni, ‘If you can enter Idar you are safe. I have two hundred horse with me. As long as a man of us remains no one shall lay hands on you.’ So saying he turned upon his pursuers. But the RÁni’s courage failed and she slew herself in the carriage. As the fight went on and the pursuers forced their way to the carriage, the maids cried ‘Why struggle more, the RÁni is dead.’ KumÁrapÁla and his men returned home.96

The ParamÁra chiefs of ChandrÁvatÍ near Ábu were also feudatories of KumÁrapÁla. It has been noted that to punish him for siding with Ar?orÁja of SÁmbhar KumÁrapÁla placed Vikrama Sim?ha the ChandrÁvatÍ chief in confinement and set Vikrama’s
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. nephew Yasodhavala on his throne. That KumÁrapÁla conquered the chiefs of SÁmbhar and MÁlwa is beyond question. Among his names is the proud title AvantÍ-nÁtha Lord of MÁlwa.

The KumÁrapÁlaprabandha gives the following limits of KumÁrapÁla’s sway. The Turushkas or Turks on the north; the heavenly Ganges on the east; the Vindhya mountains on the south; the Sindhu river on the west.97 Though in tradition KumÁrapÁla’s name does not stand so high as a builder as the name of SiddharÁja Jayasim?ha he carried out several important works. The chief of these was the restoring and rebuilding of the great shrine of Somesvara or SomanÁtha Patan. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i when KumÁrapÁla asked DevasÚri the teacher of HemÁchÁrya how best to keep his name remembered DevasÚri replied: Build a new temple of SomanÁtha fit to last an age or yuga, instead of the wooden one which is ruined by the ocean billows. KumÁrapÁla approved and appointed a building committee or paÑchakula headed by a BrÁhman named Ga??a BhÁva B?ihaspati the state officer at SomanÁtha. At the instance of HemÁchÁrya the king on hearing the foundations were laid vowed until the temple was finished he would keep apart from women and would take neither flesh nor wine. In proof of his vow he poured a handful of water over NÍlaka??ha MahÁdeva, probably his own royal god. After two years the temple was completed and the flag hoisted. HemÁchÁrya advised the king not to break his vow until he had visited the new temple and paid his obeisance to the god. The king agreed and went to SomanÁtha, HemÁchÁrya preceding him on foot and promising to come to SomanÁtha after visiting SatruÑjaya and GirnÁr. On reaching SomanÁtha the king was received by Ga??a-B?ihaspati his head local officer and by the building committee, and was taken in state through the town. At the steps of the temple the king bowed his head to the ground. Under the directions of Ga??a-B?ihaspati he worshipped the god, made gifts of elephants and other costly articles including his own weight in coin, and returned to A?ahilapura.

It is interesting to know that the present battered sea-shore temple of SomanÁtha, whose garbhÁgÁra or shrine has been turned into a mosque and whose spire has been shattered, is the temple of whose building and consecration the above details are preserved. This is shown by the style of the architecture and sculpture which is in complete agreement with the other buildings of the time of KumÁrapÁla.98

Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. KumÁrapÁla’s temple seems to have suffered in every subsequent Muhammadan invasion, in Alaf Khan’s in a.d.1300, in Mozaffar’s in a.d.1390, in MahmÚd Begada’s about a.d.1490, and in Muzaffar II.’s about a.d.1530. Time after time no sooner had the invader passed than the work of repair began afresh. One of the most notable restorations was by KhengÁr IV. (a.d.1279–1333) a ChÚ?ÁsamÁ king of JunÁga?h who is mentioned in two GirnÁr inscriptions as the repairer of SomanÁtha after its desecration by AlÁ-ud-dÍn Khilji. The latest sacrilege, including the turning of the temple into a mosque, was in the time of the AhmadÁbÁd king Muzaffar ShÁh II. (a.d.1511–1535). Since then no attempt has been made to win back the god into his old home.

In the side wall near the door of the little shrine of BhadrakÁli in Patan a broken stone inscription gives interesting details of the temple of SomanÁtha. Except that the right hand corners of some of the lines are broken, the inscription is clear and well preserved. It is dated a.d.1169 (Valabhi 850). It records that the temple of the god Somesa was first of gold built by Soma; next it was of silver built by RÁvana; afterwards of wood built by K?ish?a; and last of stone built by BhÍmadeva. The next restoration was through Ga??a-B?ihaspati under KumÁrapÁla. Of Ga??a-B?ihaspati it gives these details. He was a KanyÁkubja or Kanoj BrÁhman of the PÁsupata school, a teacher of the MÁlwa kings, and a friend of SiddharÁja Jayasim?ha. He repaired several other temples and founded several other religious buildings in SomanÁtha. He also repaired the temple of KedÁresvara in Kumaon on learning that the Khasa king of that country had allowed it to fall into disrepair. After the time of KumÁrapÁla the descendants of Ga??a-B?ihaspati remained in religious authority in SomanÁtha.

KumÁrapÁla made many Jain benefactions.99 He repaired the temple of SÁgala-VasahikÁ at Stambha-tÍrtha or Cambay where HemÁchÁrya received his initiation or dÍkshÁ. In honour of the lady who gave him barley flour and curds he built a temple called the Karambaka-VihÁra in Patan. He also built in Patan a temple called the Mouse or Mushaka-VihÁra to free himself from the impurity caused by killing a mouse while digging for treasure. At Dhandhuka HemÁchÁrya’s birthplace a temple called the JholikÁ-VihÁra or cradle temple was built. Besides these KumÁrapÁla is credited with building 1444 temples.

Though KumÁrapÁla was not a learned man, his ministers were men of learning, and he continued the practice of keeping at his court scholars especially Sanskrit poets. Two of his leading Pandits were RÁmachandra and Udayachandra both of them Jains. RÁmachandra is often mentioned in GujarÁti literature and appears to have been a great scholar. He was the author of a book called the Hundred Accounts or Prabandhasata. After Udayana’s death KumÁrapÁla’s chief minister was Kapardi a man of learning skilled in Sanskrit poetry. And all through his reign his principal adviser
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. was Hemachandra or HemÁchÁrya probably the most learned man of his time. Though HemÁchÁrya lived during the reigns both of SiddharÁja and of KumÁrapÁla, only under KumÁrapÁla did he enjoy political power as the king’s companion and religious adviser. What record remains of the early Solan?kis is chiefly due to Hemachandra.

The Jain life of HemÁchÁrya abounds in wonders. Apart from the magic and mystic elements the chief details are: ChÁchiga a Modh VÁnia of Dhandhuka100 in the district of ArdhÁsh?ama had by his wife PÁhinÍ101 of the ChÁmu??a gotra, a boy named ChÁngodeva who was born a.d.1089 (Kartik fullmoon Sam?vat 1145). A Jain priest named Devachandra ÁchÁrya (a.d.1078–1170; S. 1134–1226) came from Patan to Dhandhuka and when in Dhandhuka went to pay his obeisance at the Modh VasahikÁ. While Devachandra was seated ChÁngodeva came playing with other boys and went and sat beside the ÁchÁrya. Struck with the boy’s audacity and good looks the ÁchÁrya went with the council of the village to ChÁchiga’s house. ChÁchiga was absent but his wife being a Jain received the ÁchÁrya with respect. When she heard that her son was wanted by the council, without waiting to consult her husband, she handed the boy to the ÁchÁrya who carried him off to Kar?ÁvatÍ and kept him there with the sons of the minister Udayana. ChÁchiga, disconsolate at the loss of his son, went in quest of him vowing to eat nothing till the boy was found. He came to Kar?ÁvatÍ and in an angry mood called on the ÁchÁrya to restore him his son. Udayana was asked to interfere and at last persuaded ChÁchiga to let the boy stay with Devachandra.

In a.d.1097, when ChÁngodeva was eight years old ChÁchiga celebrated his son’s consecration or dÍkshÁ and gave him the name of Somachandra. As the boy became extremely learned Devachandra changed his name to Hemachandra the Moon of gold. In a.d.1110 (S. 1166) at the age of 21, his mastery of all the SÁstras and SiddhÁntas was rewarded by the dignity of SÚri or sage. SiddharÁja was struck with his conversation and honoured him as a man of learning. Hemachandra’s knowledge, wisdom and tact enabled him to adhere openly to his Jain rules and beliefs though SiddharÁja’s dislike of Jain practices was so great as at times to amount to insult. After one of their quarrels HemÁchÁrya kept away from the king for two or three days. Then the king seeing his humility and his devotion to his faith repented and apologised. The two went together to SomanÁtha Patan and there HemÁchÁrya paid his obeisance to the lin?ga in a way that did not offend his own faith. During SiddharÁja’s reign HemÁchÁrya wrote his well known grammar with aphorisms or sÚtras and commentary or v?itti called Siddha-Hemachandra, a title compounded of the king’s name and his own. As the BrÁhmans found fault with the absence of any detailed references to the king in the work Hemachandra
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. added one verse at the end of each chapter in praise of the king. During SiddharÁja’s reign he also wrote two other works, the HaimÍnÁmamÁlÁ, “String of Names composed by Hema(chandra)” or AbhidhÁnachintÁma?i and the AnekÁrthanÁmamÁlÁ, a Collection of words of more than one meaning. He also began the DvyÁsrayakosha102 or Double Dictionary being both a grammar and a history. In spite of his value to KumÁrapÁla, in the beginning of KumÁrapÁla’s reign HemÁchÁrya was not honoured as a spiritual guide and had to remain subordinate to BrÁhmans. When KumÁrapÁla asked him what was the most important religious work he could perform HemÁchÁrya advised the restoring of the temple of SomanÁtha. Still HemÁchÁrya so far won the king to his own faith that till the completion of the temple he succeeded in persuading the king to take the vow of ahim?sÁ or non-killing which though common to both faiths is a specially Jain observance. Seeing this mark of his ascendancy over the king, the king’s family priest and other BrÁhmans began to envy and thwart HemÁchÁrya. On the completion of the temple, when the king was starting for SomanÁtha for the installation ceremony, the BrÁhmans told him that HemÁchÁrya did not mean to go with him. HemÁchÁrya who had heard of the plot had already accepted the invitation. He said being a recluse he must go on foot, and that he also wanted to visit GirnÁr, and from GirnÁr would join the king at SomanÁtha. His object was to avoid travelling in a palanquin with the king or suffering a repetition of SiddharÁja’s insult for not accepting a pÁlkÍ. Soon after reaching SomanÁtha KumÁrapÁla asked after HemÁchÁrya. The BrÁhmans spread a story that he had been drowned, but HemÁchÁrya was careful to appear in the temple as the king reached it. The king saw him, called him, and took him with him to the temple. Some BrÁhmans told the king that the Jain priest would not pay any obeisance to Siva, but HemÁchÁrya saluted the god in the following verse in which was nothing contrary to strict Jainism: ‘Salutation to him, whether he be Brahma, Vish?u, Hara, or Jina, from whom have fled desires which produce the sprouts of the seed of worldliness.’103 After this joint visit to SomanÁtha Hemachandra gained still more ascendancy over the king, who appreciated his calmness of mind and his forbearance. The BrÁhmans tried to prevent the growth of his influence, but in the end Hemachandra overcame them. He induced the king to place in the sight of his BrÁhmanical family priests an image of SÁntinÁtha TÍrthan?kara among his family gods. He afterwards persuaded KumÁrapÁla publicly to adopt the Jain faith by going to the hermitage of Hemachandra and giving
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. numerous presents to Jain ascetics. Finally under his influence KumÁrapÁla put away all BrÁhmanical images from his family place of worship. Having gone such lengths KumÁrapÁla began to punish the BrÁhmans who insulted Hemachandra. A BrÁhman named VÁmarÁsi, a Pandit at the royal court, who composed a verse insulting Hemachandra, lost his annuity and was reduced to beggary, but on apologising to Hemachandra the annuity was restored. Another BrÁhmanical officer named BhÁva B?ihaspati, who was stationed at SomanÁtha, was re-called for insulting Hemachandra. But he too on apologising to Hemachandra was restored to SomanÁtha. Under Hemachandra’s influence KumÁrapÁla gave up the use of flesh and wine, ceased to take pleasure in the chase, and by beat of drum forbade throughout his kingdom the taking of animal life. He withdrew their licenses from hunters, fowlers and fishermen, and forced them to adopt other callings. To what lengths this dread of life-taking was carried appears from an order that only filtered water was to be given to all animals employed in the royal army. Among the stories told of the king’s zeal for life-saving is one of a Bania of SÁmbhar who having been caught killing a louse was brought in chains to A?ahilavÁ?a, and had his property confiscated and devoted to the building at A?ahilavÁ?a of a Louse Temple or YÚkÁ-VihÁra. According to another story a man of Nador in MÁrwÁr was put to death by Kelhana the chief of Nador to appease KumÁrapÁla’s wrath at hearing that the man’s wife had offered flesh to a field-god or kshetrapÁla. Hemachandra also induced the king to forego the claim of the state to the property of those who died without a son.

During KumÁrapÁla’s reign Hemachandra wrote many well known Sanskrit and Prakrit works on literature and religion. Among these are the AdhyÁtmopanishad or YogasÁstra a work of 12,000 verses in twelve chapters called PrakÁsas, the TrisÁsh?hisÁlÁkÁpurushacharitra or lives of sixty-three Jain saints of the UtsarpinÍ and AvasarpinÍ ages; the Parisish?aparvan, a work of 3500 verses being the life of Jain Sthaviras who flourished after MahÁvÍra; the PrÁk?ita SabdÁnusÁsana or PrÁkrit grammar; the DvyÁsraya104 a Prakrit poem written with the double object of teaching grammar and of giving the history of KumÁrapÁla; the ChhandonusÁsana a work of about 6000 verses on prosody; the Lin?gÁnusÁsana a work on genders; the DesÍnÁmamÁlÁ in Prakrit with a commentary a work on local and provincial words; and the Alan?kÁrachÚ?Áma?i a work on rhetoric. Hemachandra died in a.d.1172 (S. 1229) at the age of 84. The king greatly mourned his loss and marked his brow with Hemachandra’s ashes. Such crowds came to share in the ashes of the pyre that the ground was hollowed into a pit known as the Haima-Khadda or Hema’s Pit.

KumÁrapÁla lived to a great age. According to the author of the PrabandhachintÁma?i he was fifty when he succeeded to the
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
KumÁrapÁla, a.d.1143–1174. throne, and after ruling about thirty-one years died in a.d.1174 (S. 1230). He is said to have died of lÚta a form of leprosy. Another story given by the KumÁrapÁlaprabandha is that KumÁrapÁla was imprisoned by his nephew and successor AjayapÁla. The KumÁrapÁlaprabandha gives the exact length of KumÁrapÁla’s reign at 30 years 8 months and 27 days. If the beginning of KumÁrapÁla’s reign is placed at the 4th Magsar Sud Sam?vat 1299, the date of the close, taking the year to begin in KÁrtika, would be BhÁdrapada Suddha Sam?vat 1229. If with GujarÁt almanacs the year is taken to begin in ÁshÁ?ha, the date of the close of the reign would be BhÁdrapada of Sam?vat 1230. It is doubtful whether either Sam?vat 1229 or 1230 is the correct year, as an inscription dated Sam?vat 1229 VaishÁkha Suddha 3rd at Udayapura near BhilsÁ describes AjayapÁla KumÁrapÁla’s successor as reigning at A?ahilapura. This would place KumÁrapÁla’s death before the month of VaishÁkha 1229 that is in a.d.1173.105

AjayapÁla, a.d.1174–1177.As KumÁrapÁla had no son he was succeeded by AjayapÁla the son of his brother MahÍpÁla.106 According to the KumÁrapÁlaprabandha KumÁrapÁla desired to give the throne to his daughter’s son PratÁpamalla, but AjayapÁla raised a revolt and got rid of KumÁrapÁla by poison. The Jain chroniclers say nothing of the reign of AjayapÁla because he was not a follower of their religion. The author of the Suk?itasankÍrtana notices a small silver canopy or pavilion shown in AjayapÁla’s court as a feudatory’s gift from the king of SapÁdalaksha107 or SewÁlik. The author of the KÍrtikaumudÍ dismisses AjayapÁla with the mere mention of his name, and does not even state his relationship with KumÁrapÁla. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i AjayapÁla destroyed the Jain temples built by his uncle. He showed no favour to Ámba?Á and KumÁrapÁla’s other Jain ministers. AjayapÁla seems to have been of a cruel and overbearing temper. He appointed as his minister Kapardi because he was of the BrÁhmanical faith.108 But considering his manners arrogant he ordered him to be thrown into a caldron of boiling oil. On another occasion he ordered the Jain scholar RÁmachandra to sit on a red-hot sheet of copper. One of his nobles Ámra-bha?a or Ámba?Á refused to submit to
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
AjayapÁla, a.d.1174–1177. the king, saying that he would pay obeisance only to VÍtarÁja or TÍrthan?kara as god, to Hemachandra as guide, and to KumÁrapÁla as king. AjayapÁla ordered the matter to be settled by a fight. Ámba?Á brought some of his followers to the drum-house near the gate, and in the fight that followed Ámba?Á was killed. In a.d.1177 (S. 1233), after a short reign of three years, AjayapÁla was slain by a doorkeeper named Vijjaladeva who plunged a dagger into the king’s heart.109

MÚlarÁja II., a.d.1177–1179.AjayapÁla was succeeded by his son MÚlarÁja II. also called BÁla MÚlarÁja as he was only a boy when installed. His mother was NÁikÍdevÍ the daughter of Paramardi, apparently the KÁdamba king PermÁdi or Siva Chitta who reigned from a.d.1147 to 1175 (S. 1203–1231).110 The authors of the KÍrtikaumudÍ111 and the Suk?itasankÍrtana say that even in childhood MÚlarÁja II. dispersed the Turushka or Muhammadan army.112 The PrabandhachintÁma?i states that the king’s mother fought at the GÁdarÁraghatta and that her victory was due to a sudden fall of rain. MÚlarÁja II. is said to have died in a.d.1179 (S. 1235) after a reign of two years.

BhÍma II. a.d.1179–1242.MÚlarÁja II. was succeeded by BhÍma II. The relationship of the two is not clearly established. Mr. Forbes makes BhÍma the younger brother of AjayapÁla. But it appears from the KÍrtikaumudÍ and the Suk?itasankÍrtana that BhÍma was the younger brother of MÚlarÁja. The Suk?itasankÍrtana after concluding the account of MÚlarÁja,113 calls BhÍma ‘asya bandhu’ ‘his brother,’ and the KÍrtikaumudÍ, after mentioning the death of MÚlarÁja, says that BhÍma his younger brother ‘anujanmÁsya’ became king.114
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
BhÍma II. a.d.1179–1242. MÚlarÁja we know came to the throne as a child. Of BhÍma also the KÍrtikaumudÍ says that he came to the throne while still in his childhood, and this agrees with the statements that he was the younger brother of MÚlarÁja. BhÍma probably came to the throne a.d.1178 (S. 1234). There is no doubt he was reigning in a.d.1179 (S. 1235), as an inscription in the deserted village of KerÁlu near BÁlmer of A?ahilavÁ?a dated a.d.1179 (S. 1235) states that it was written ‘in the triumphant reign of the illustrious BhÍmadeva.’115 A further proof of his reigning in a.d.1179 (S. 1235) and of his being a minor at that time is given in the following passage from the TabakÁt-i-NÁsirÍ: In a.d.1178 (Hijri 574) the RÁÍ of NahrwÁlÁ BhÍmdeo, was a minor, but he had a large army and many elephants. In the day of battle the Muhammadans were defeated and the SultÁn was compelled to retreat.116 Merutu?ga says that BhÍma reigned from a.d.1179 (S. 1235) for sixty-three years that is up to a.d.1242 (S. 1298), and this is borne out by a copperplate of BhÍma which bears date a.d.1240 (S. 1296117 MÁrgha Vadi 14th Sunday118).

BhÍma was nicknamed Bholo the Simpleton. The chroniclers of this period mention only the VÁghelÁs and almost pass over BhÍma. The author of the KÍrtikaumudÍ says ‘the kingdom of the young ruler was gradually divided among powerful ministers and provincial chiefs’; and according to the Suk?itasankÍrtana ‘BhÍma felt great anxiety on account of the chiefs who had forcibly eaten away portions of the kingdom.’ It appears that during the minority, when the central authority was weak, the kingdom was divided among nobles and feudatories, and that BhÍma proved too weak a ruler to restore the kingly power. Manuscripts and copperplates show that BhÍmadeva was ruling at A?ahilavÁ?a in S. 1247, 1251, 1261, 1263, and 1264,119 and copperplates dated S. 1283, 1288, 1295, and 1296 have also been found. Though BhÍma in name enjoyed a long unbroken reign the verses quoted above show that power rested not with the king but with the nobles. It appears from an inscription that in a.d.1224 (S. 1280) a ChÁlukya noble named Jayantasim?ha was supreme at A?ahilavÁ?a though he mentions BhÍma and his predecessors with honour and respect.120

It was probably by aiding BhÍma against Jayantasim?ha that the VÁghelÁs rose to power. According to the chroniclers the VÁghelÁs succeeded in the natural course of things. According to the Suk?itasankÍrtana KumÁrapÁla appeared to his grandson BhÍma and directed him to appoint as his heir-apparent VÍradhavala son of Lava?aprasÁda and grandson of Ar?orÁja the son of Dhavala king of Bhimapalli. Next day in court, in the presence of his nobles, when Lava?aprasÁda and VÍradhavala entered the king said to
Chapter II.
The Chaulukyas, a.d.961–1242.
BhÍma II. a.d.1179–1242. Lava?aprasÁda: Your father Ar?orÁja seated me on the throne: you should therefore uphold my power: in return I will name your son VÍradhavala my heir-apparent.121 The author of the KÍrtikaumudÍ notes that Ar?orÁja son of Dhavala, opposing the revolution against BhÍma, cleared the kingdom of enemies, but at the cost of his own life. The author then describes Lava?aprasÁda and VÍradhavala as kings. But as he gives no account of their rise to supremacy, it seems probable that they usurped the actual power from BhÍma though till a.d.1242 (S. 1295) BhÍma continued to be nominal sovereign.

BhÍma’s queen was LÍlÁdevÍ the daughter of a ChohÁn chief named Samarasim?ha.122

1 Ind. Ant. IV. 71–72 and VI. 180.?

2 Ind. Ant. VI. 180ff. The suggestion may be offered that the KanyÁkubja which is mentioned as the seat of MÚlarÁja’s ancestors, is Kar?akubja, an old name of JunÁga?h. Compare Burgess’ KÁthiÁwÁr and Kutch, 156.?

3 Ind. Ant. VI. 191ff.?

4 Kirtane’s HammÍramahÁkÁvya, I.?

5 The ChohÁns of Ajmir were also known as the rulers of SÁkambharÍ, the SÁmbhar lake in RÁjputÁna on the borders of Jaipur and Jodhpur. The corrected edition of the Harsha inscription published by Prof. Kielhorn in Epigraphia Indica II. 116ff. shows that their first historical king was GÚvaka, who reigned some time in the first half of the ninth century (c. 820 a.d.) The ChohÁns are still very numerous in the neighbourhood of the SewÁlik hills, especially in the districts of AmbÁlÁ and KarnÁl. Compare Ibbetson’s PanjÁb Census for 1881.?

6 It appears from the grant of Saka 972 published by Mr. Dhruva in Ind. Ant. XII. 196 and from the Surat grant of KÍrttirÁja dated Saka 940, that this BÁrappa was the founder of a dynasty who ruled LÁ?a or South GujarÁt as under-kings of the Dakhan ChÁlukyas until at least a.d.1050. BÁrappa was, as his name shows, a Southerner from the KÁnarese country, but his descendants spell the family name Chaulukya in the same way as the dynasty of A?ahilavÁ?a.?

7 Dr. BÜhler (Ind. Ant. XII. 123) sees a reference to this retirement in MÚlarÁja’s grant of Sam?vat 1043.?

8 Apparently a Sanskrit form of BÁrappa.?

9 Broach according to the commentator.?

10 The Suk?itasankÍrtana mentions this defeat of BÁrappa who is said to be a general of the KanyÁkubja or Kanoj king. The PrabandhachintÁma?i (MÚlarÁjaprabandha) also mentions the invasion and slaughter of BÁrappa; but there is no reference to it in the grant of BÁrappa’s descendant TrilochanapÁla (Ind. Ant. XII. 196ff.)?

11 Canto II. Verse 3.?

12 As Mr. Forbes rightly observed Graharipu the Planet-seizer is a made-up title based on the resemblance of the planet-seizer’s name RÁhu to RÁ the title of the ChÚ?ÁsamÁs of JunÁga?h. The personal name of the chief is not given and the list of the JunÁga?h ChÚ?ÁsamÁs is too incomplete to allow of identification.?

13 The mention of her name and of the language in which she wrote suggest something remarkable in the race and position of queen NÍlÍ.?

14 Perhaps SithÁ in JhÁlÁvÁ?.?

15 The same account appears in the KumÁrapÁlacharita.?

16 Compare the LakshmÍ-VihÁra Jain temple in Jesalmir built by the Jain San?gha and called after the reigning king Lakshma?a.?

17 Dr. BÜhler’s copperplate of MÚlarÁja records a grant to this temple, said to be of MÚlanÁthadeva in Ma??ali in the Vardhi zilla, apparently the modern MÁndal near PaÑchÁsar in the VadhiÁr province near JhinjhuvÁ?a. The grant is in Sam?vat 1043 and is dated from A?ahilapura though the actual gift was made at SrÍsthala or Sidhpur after bathing in the SarasvatÍ and worshipping the god of the RudramahÁlaya. The grant is of the village of Kamboika, the modern Kam?boi near Modhera. Ind. Ant. VI. 192–193. The grant is said to have been written by a KÁyastha named KÁÑcha?a and ends with the words “of the illustrious MÚlarÁja.”?

18 The difference between 1052 and 1053 is probably only a few months.?

19 The fight with MuÑja must have taken place about a.d.1011 (S. 1067). As ChÁmu??a started just after installing Vallabha the beginning of the reign must be before a.d.997 as Tailapa who fought with MuÑja died in that year. This is proved by a manuscript dated a.d.994 (S. 1050) which gives the reigning king as MuÑja. That Bhoja MuÑja’s successor was ruling in a.d.1014 (S. 1070) makes it probable that MuÑja’s reign extended to a.d.1011 (S. 1067).?

20 This Svayam?vara and the list of attendant and rival kings seem imaginary. The Nadol chiefship was not important enough to draw kings from the countries named.?

21 The text has son but BhÍma was Durlabha’s nephew not his son.?

22 By sowing cowries Kulachandra may have meant to show the cheapness of A?ahilavÁ?a. Bhoja’s meaning was that as shells are money, to sow shells was to sow MÁlwa wealth in GujarÁt. If Kulachandra had sown salt all would have melted, and no trace been left. [This seems a symbolic later-stage explanation. The sense seems to be shell-sowing keeps the A?ahilavÁ?a guardians in place since guardians can live in shells: salt-sowing scares the guardian spirits and makes the site of the city a haunt of demons. Bhoja saw that thanks to his general the Luck of A?ahilavÁ?a would remain safe in the shells.]?

23 The PrabandhachintÁma?i tells other stories of the relations between BhÍma and Bhoja. Once when GujarÁt was suffering from famine BhÍma heard that Bhoja was coming with a force against GujarÁt. Alarmed at the news BhÍma asked DÁmara his minister of peace and war to prevent Bhoja coming. DÁmara went to MÁlwa, amused the king by witty stories, and while a play was being acted in court degrading and joking other kings, something was said regarding Tailapa of Telingana. On this Damara reminded the king that the head of his grandfather MuÑja was fixed at Tailap’s door. Bhoja grew excited and started with an army against Telingana. Hearing that BhÍma had come against him as far as BhÍmapura (?) Bhoja asked DÁmara to prevent BhÍma advancing further. DÁmara stopped BhÍma by taking him an elephant as a present from Bhoja. The PrabandhachintÁma?i gives numerous other stories showing that at times the relations between Bhoja and BhÍma were friendly.?

24 See above page 9.?

25 See above page 160.?

26 With this silence compare the absence (Reinaud’s MÉmoire Sur l’Inde, 67) of any reference either in Sanskrit or in Buddhist books to the victories, even to the name, of Alexander the Great. Also in modern times the ignoring of British rule in the many inscriptions of Jain repairers of temples on SatruÑjaya hill who belong to British territory. The only foreign reference is by one merchant of Daman who acknowledges the protection of the Phirangi jÁti PuratakÁla PÁtasahi the king of the Firangis of Portugal. BÜhler in Epigraphia Indica, II. 36.?

27 Elliot and Dowson, II. 468ff. Sir H. M. Elliot gives extracts for this expedition from the TÁrikh-i-Alfi, TabakÁt-i-Akbari, TabakÁt-i-NÁsiri, and Rauzatu-s-safÁ.?

28 Since the earliest times Hindus have held eclipse days sacred. According to the MahÁbhÁrata the YÁdavas of DwÁrkÁ came to SomanÁtha for an eclipse fair. Great fairs are still held at SomanÁtha on the KÁrtika and Chaitra (December and April) fullmoons.?

29 This old Indian idea is expressed in a verse in an inscription in SomanÁtha PÁtan itself.?

30 Ten thousand must be taken vaguely.?

31 Compare Sachau’s Alberuni, II. 104. Every day they brought SomanÁtha a jug of Ganges water and a basket of Kashmir flowers. SomanÁtha they believed cured every inveterate sickness and healed every desperate and incurable disease. The reason why SomanÁtha became so famous was that it was a harbour for those who went to and fro from Sofala in Zanzibar to China. It is still the practice to carry Ganges water to bathe distant gods.?

32 These must be the local Sompura BrÁhmans who still number more than five hundred souls in SomanÁtha Patan.?

33 Shaving is the first rite performed by pilgrims.?

34 Dancers are now chiefly found in the temples of Southern India.?

35 MahmÚd seems to have crossed the desert from MultÁn and BahÁwalpur to BikÁnÍr and thence to AjmÍr.?

36 Apparently DelvÁda near UnÁ. MahmÚd’s route seems to have been from A?ahilavÁ?a to Modhera and MÁndal, thence by the Little Ran near PÁtri and BajÁna, and thence by JhÁlÁvÁ? GohelvÁ? and BÁbriavÁ? to DelvÁdÁ.?

37 The waves still beat against the walls of the ruined fort of SomanÁtha.?

38 This shows that the temple was a building of brick and wood. According to Alberuni (Sachau, II. 105) the temple was built about a hundred years before MahmÚd’s invasion. An inscription at Patan states that BhÍmadeva I. (a.d.1022–1072) rebuilt the SomanÁtha temple of stone. In Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl’s opinion the first dynasty in GujarÁt to make stone buildings were the Solan?kis. Before them buildings and temples were of wood and brick.?

39 Of the fate of the great Lin?ga Alberuni (Sachau, II. 103) writes: Prince MahmÚd ordered the upper part to be broken. The rest with all its coverings and trappings of gold jewels and embroidered garments he transported to Ghazni. Part of it together with the brass Chakravarti or Vish?u of ThÁnesvar has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town: part lies before the mosque for people to rub their feet on.?

40 The next paragraph relating to MahmÚd’s return will be found on page 249 of the same volume of Sir H. Elliott’s work.?

41 Khandahat which must have been on the coast has not been identified. The description suggests some coast island in the gulf of Kacch. By the GirnÁr route forty parasangs that is 240 miles would reach the Kacch coast. Kanthkot in VÁgad in east Kacch suits well in sound and is known to have been a favourite resort of the Solan?kis. But the ebb and flow of the tide close to it are difficult to explain. The identification with Kanthkot is favoured by Dr. BÜhler. Colonel Watson (KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 80) prefers GÁndhvi on the KÁthiÁvÁ?a coast a few miles north-east of MiÁni. M. Reinaud and Dr. Weil suggest GandhÁr in Broach on the left bank of the mouth of the DhÁdhar river. Sir H. Elliot (I. 445 and II. 473) prefers KhandadÁr at the north-west angle of KÁthiÁvÁ?a.?

42 According to Ferishta (Bombay Persian Ed. I. 57, Briggs’ Translation, I. 74) MahmÚd stayed and meant to make his capital at A?ahilavÁ?a not at SomanÁtha. That MahmÚd did stay at A?ahilavÁ?a the Martyr’s Mound and the Ghazni Mosque in Patan are evidence. Still the mound was probably raised and the mosque may at least have been begun in honour of the capture of A?ahilavÁ?a on the journey south. Traces of a second mosque which is said to have had a tablet recording MahmÚd of Ghazni as the builder have recently (1878) been found at Munjpur about twenty-five miles south-east of RÁdhanpur.?

43 Briggs’ Ferishta, I. 75. This account of the DÁbshilÍms reads more like a tradition than an historical record. It is to be noted that the authors both of the Áin-i-Akbari (a.d.1583) and of the Mirat-i-AhmadÍ (a.d.1762) give ChÁmu??a as king at the time of MahmÚd’s invasion. Their statements cannot weigh against Ibn AsÍr’s account. Compare Dr. BÜhler’s remarks in Ind. Ant. VI. 184. Of MahmÚd’s return to Ghazni (a.d.1026) the TabakÁt-i-Akbari says: ‘When MahmÚd resolved to return from SomanÁtha he learned that Parama Dev, one of the greatest RÁjÁs of HindustÁn, was preparing to intercept him. The SultÁn, not deeming it advisable to contend with this chief, went towards MultÁn through Sindh. In this journey his men suffered much in some places from scarcity of water in others from want of forage. After enduring great difficulties he arrived at Ghazni in a.d.1029 (H. 417).’ This Parama Dev would seem to be the ParmÁra king of Ábu who could well block the Ajmir-GujarÁt route. The route taken by MahmÚd must have passed by MansÚra near BrÁhmanÁbÁd, BhÁtia, and MultÁn. It must have been in the crossing of the great desert that he suffered so severely from scarcity of water and forage. Ferishta (Briggs, I. 75) says that many of MahmÚd’s troops died raging mad from the intolerable heat and thirst. The historian Muhammad Ufi (a.d.1200) alleges (Elliot, II. 192) that two Hindus disguised as countrymen offered themselves as guides and led the army three days’ march out of the right course, where they were saved only by MahmÚd’s miraculous discovery of a pool of sweet water. [This tale of the self-sacrificing BrÁhman or priest and the miraculous find of water has gathered round MahmÚd as the latest of myth centres. It is Herodotus’ (Book III. 154–158) old Zopyrus tale (Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 318); it is revived in honour of the Great KushÁn Kanishka, a.d.78 (Beruni in Elliot, II. 11), of the Sassanian Firoz a.d.457–483 (Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 318), and of a certain king of ZÁbulistÁn or Ghazni of uncertain date (Elliot II. 170). Similarly the puzzling DabshilÍm tale seems to be peculiar neither to GujarÁt nor to MahmÚd of Ghazni. It seems a repetition of the tale of DabshilÍm the man of the royal race, who, according to the Panchatantra or Fables of Pilpai, was chosen successor of Porus after Alexander the Great’s Viceroy had been driven out. [Compare Reinaud’s MÉmoire Sur l’Inde, 127–128.] The TabakÁt-i-NÁsirÍ (a.d.1227) adds (Elliot, II. 475) that the guide devoted his life for the sake of SomanÁtha and this account is adopted by Ferishta, Briggs’ Translation, I. 78.?

44 Vasahiis PrÁkrit for Vasati that is residence. The word is used to mean a group of temples.?

45 Several later mentions of a TripurushaprÁsÁda show there was only one building of that name. The statement that the great MÚlarÁja I. built a TripurushaprÁsÁda seems a mistake, due to a confusion with prince MÚlarÁja.?

46 Meaning a large number of Bhils of whom ÁshÁ was the head.?

47 Forbes’ RÁs MÁlÁ (New Ed.), 79.?

48 Probably a BhÍl goddess. The name does not sound Sanskrit.?

49 In one passage the PrabandhachintÁma?i calls these princes half-brothers of Udaya. Further details show that they were half-brothers of one another and sons of Udaya.?

50 This Jayakesi is Jayakesi I. son of Shash?hadeva (Suchakesi) the third of the Goa KÁdambas. Jayakesi’s recorded date a.d.1052 (S. 974) fits well with the time of Kar?a (Fleet’s KÁnarese Dynasties, 91). The PrabandhachintÁma?i tells the following story of the death of Jayakesi. Jayakesi had a favourite parrot whom he one day asked to come out of his cage and dine with him. The parrot said: The cat sitting near you will kill me. The king seeing no cat replied: If any cat kills you I too will die. The parrot left his cage, ate with the king, and was killed by the cat. Jayakesi made ready his funeral pyre, and, in spite of his minister’s prayers, taking the dead parrot in his hand laid himself on the funeral pyre and was burned.?

51 Chandrapura is probably ChandÁvar near Gokarn in North KÁnara.?

52 RÁs MÁlÁ (New Edition), 83.?

53 Kielhorn’s Report on Sanskrit Manuscripts for 1881 page 22.?

54 Dussala was sixth in descent from VigraharÁja the enemy of MÚlarÁja from whom Kar?a was fifth in descent.?

55 The date of his installation is given by the author of the VichÁrasre?i as Vikrama S. 1150.?

56 ÁsapÁla and KumÁrapÁla appear to be local chiefs.?

57 Compare Forbes’ RÁs MÁlÁ, I. 118–153.?

58 Goa KÁdÁmba inscriptions say that Jagaddeva was the cousin of the Goa KÁdamba king VijayÁrka the nephew of MiyÁnalladevÍ and call him by courtesy the younger brother of VijayÁrka’s son Jayakesi II. He would seem to have been held in esteem by VijayÁrka and his son Jayakesi, to have then gone for some time to SiddharÁja, and after leaving SiddharÁja to have transferred his services to PermÁdi. His being called ParamÁra may be due to his connection with PermÁdi. Fleet’s KÁnarese Dynasties, 91.?

59 Seventy-two a favourite number with Indian authors.?

60 PrabandhachintÁma?i and KumÁrapÁlacharita.?

61 Dr. Kielhorn’s Report on Sanskrit Manuscripts for 1881 page 22.?

62 The KumÁrapÁlacharita says that the title was assumed on the conquest of Barbaraka. The verse is:

that is, by him the demon Barbaraka was vanquished, therefore he became SiddharÁja The Lord of Magical Power.?

63 Ind. Ant. IV. 265.?

64 This PermÁdi may be the Goa KÁdamba chief PermÁdi Sivachitta (a.d.1147–1175), who was heir-apparent in the time of SiddharÁja, or the Sinda chief PermÁdi who was a cotemporary of SiddharÁja and flourished in a.d.1144.?

65 Ind. Ant. IV. 2. Regarding Barbaraka Doctor BÜhler remarks in Ind. Ant. VI. 167: ‘The Varvarakas are one of the non-Aryan tribes which are settled in great numbers in North GujarÁt, Koli, BhÍl, or Mer.’ SiddharÁja’s contests with the Barbarakas seem to refer to what Tod (Western India, 173 and 195) describes as the inroads of mountaineers and foresters on the plains of GujarÁt during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. To attempt to identify Bhut Barbar or Varvar is hazardous. The name Barbar is of great age and is spread from India to Morocco. Wilson (Works, VII. 176) says: The analogy between Barbaras and barbarians is not in sound only. In all Sanskrit authorities Barbaras are classed with borderers and foreigners and nations not Hindu. According to Sir Henry Rawlinson (Ferrier’s Caravan Journeys, 223 note) tribes of Berbers are found all over the east. Of the age of the word Canon Rawlinson (Herodotus, IV. 252) writes: Barbar seems to be the local name for the early race of Accad. In India Ptolemy (a.d.150; McCrindle’s Edn. 146) has a town Barbarei on the Indus and the Periplus (a.d.247; McCrindle’s Ed. 108) has a trade-centre Barbarikon on the middle mouth of the Indus. Among Indian writings, in the RamÁya?a (Hall in Wilson’s Works, VII. 176 Note *) the Barbaras appear between the TukhÁras and the Kambojas in the north: in the MahÁbhÁrata (Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, I. 481–2) in one list Var-varas are entered between SÁvaras and Sakas and in another list (Wilson’s Works, VII. 176) Barbaras come between Kiratas and Siddhas. Finally (As. Res. XV. 47 footnote) Barbara is the northmost of the Seven Konkanas. The names Barbarei in Ptolemy and Barbarikon in the Periplus look like some local place-name, perhaps Bambhara, altered to a Greek form. The Hindu tribe names, from the sameness in sound as well as from their position on the north-west border of India, suggest the Mongol tribe JuÁn-JuÁn or Var-Var, known to the western nations as Avars, who drove the Little Yuechi out of Balkh in the second half of the fourth century, and, for about a hundred years, ruled to the north and perhaps also to the south of the Hindu Kush. (Specht in Journal Asiatique 1883. II. 390–410; Howorth in Jour. R. A. S. XXI. 721–810.) It seems probable that some of these Var-Vars passed south either before or along with the White HÚ?as (a.d.450–550). Var, under its Mongol plural form Avarti (Howorth, Ditto 722), closely resembles Avartiya one of the two main divisions of the KÁthis of Kacch (Mr. Erskine’s List in J. Bom. Geo. Soc. II. 59–60 for Aug. 1838). That among the forty-seven clans included under the Avartiyas four (Nos. 30, 35, 42, and 43) are Babariyas, suggests that the KÁthis received additions from the Var-Vars at different times and places. Dr. BÜhler (Ind. Ant. VI. 186) thinks that the Babaro or Barbar or Var-Var who gave trouble to SiddharÁja represent some early local non-Aryan tribe. The fact that they are called RÁkshasas and Mlecchas and that they stopped the ceremonies at Sidhpur north of A?ahilavÁ?a seems rather to point to a foreign invasion from the north than to a local uprising of hill tribes. Though no MusalmÁn invasion of GujarÁt during the reign of SiddharÁja is recorded a Jesalmir legend (Forbes’ RÁs MÁlÁ, I. 175) tells how Lanja Bijirao the Bhatti prince who married SiddharÁja’s daughter was hailed by his mother-in-law as the bulwark of A?ahilavÁ?a against the power of the king who grows too strong. This king may be BÁhalim the Indian viceroy of the Ghaznavid BahrÁm ShÁh (a.d.1116–1157). BÁhalim (Elliot, II. 279; Briggs’ Ferista, I. 151) collected an army of Arabs, Persians, AfghÁns, and Khiljis, repaired the fort of NÁgor in the province of SewÁlik, and committed great devastations in the territories of the independent Indian rulers. He threw off allegiance to Ghazni and advancing to meet BahrÁm ShÁh near MultÁn was defeated and slain. Except that they were northerners and that BÁhalim’s is the only known invasion from the north during SiddharÁja’s reign nothing has been found connecting Barbar and BÁhalim. At the same time that the Barbar or Var-Var of the GujarÁt writers may have been non-Hindu mercenaries from the north-west frontier whom SiddharÁja admitted as Hindu subjects is made not unlikely by two incidents preserved by the Muhammadan historians. The TÁrikh-i-SorÁth (Bayley’s GujarÁt, 35 Note *) tells how in a.d.1178 from the defeated army of ShahÁb-ud-din Ghori the Turkish AfghÁn and Moghal women were distributed the higher class to high caste and the commoner to low caste Hindus. Similarly how the better class of male captives were admitted among ChakÁval and WadhÁl RÁjputs and the lower among KhÁnts, Kolis, BÁbrias, and Mers. Again about thirty years later (a.d.1210) when his Turk mercenaries, who were not converted to IslÁm, revolted against Shams-ud-dÍn Altamsh they seized Delhi and built Hindu temples (Elliot, II. 237–239). These cases seem to make it likely that among BÁhalim’s mercenaries were some un-Islamised North Indian Var-Vars and that they were admitted into Hinduism by SiddharÁja and as the story states served him as other RÁjputs. Some of the new-comers as noted above seem to have merged into the KÁthis. Others founded or joined the BÁbariÁs who give their name to BÁbariÁvÁ?a a small division in the south of KÁthiÁvÁ?a. Though the tribe is now small the 72 divisions of the BÁbariÁs show that they were once important. One of their leading divisions preserves the early form Var (KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 132–133) and supports their separate northern origin, which is forgotten in the local stories that they are descended from JethvÁs and Ahirs and have a BrÁhman element in their ancestry. (Tod’s Western India, 413; KÁthiÁwÁr Gazetteer, 132–123.) Of the Var-Vars in their old seats a somewhat doubtful trace remains in the Barbaris a tribe of HazÁrÁhs near Herat (Bellew in Imp. and As. Quar. Review Oct. 1891 page 328) and in the PanjÁb (Ibbetson’s Census, 538) BhÁbras a class of PanjÁb Jains.?

66 Abhayatilaka Ga?i who revised and completed the DvyÁsraya in Vikrama S. 1312 (a.d.1256) says, in his twentieth Sarga, that a new era was started by KumÁrapÁla. This would seem to refer to the Sim?ha era.?

67 The KumÁrapÁlacharita states that Sajjana died before the temple was finished, and that the temple was completed by his son ParasurÁma. After the temple was finished SiddharÁja is said to have come to SomanÁtha and asked ParasurÁma for the revenues of Sorath. But on seeing the temple on GirnÁr he was greatly pleased, and on finding that it was called Kar?a-vihÁra after his father he sanctioned the outlay on the temple.?

68 Ind. Ant. VI. 194ff. Dr. BÜhler (Ditto) takes AvantÍnÁtha to mean SiddharÁja’s opponent the king of MÁlwa and not SiddharÁja himself.?

69 ArchÆological Survey Report, XXI. 86.?

70 Jour. B. A. Soc. (1848), 319.?

71 The original verse is ?????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??

72 These, as quoted by RÁo SÁheb MahÍpatrÁm RÚprÁm in his Sadhara Jesangh, are, the erection of charitable feeding-houses every yojana or four miles, of Dabhoi fort, of a ku?da or reservoir at Kapadvanj, of the MÁlavya lake at DholkÁ, of small temples, of the RudramahÁlaya, of the RÁni’s step-well, of the Sahasralin?ga lake, of reservoirs at Sihor, of the fort of SÁelÁ, of the Dasasahasra or ten thousand temples, of the Mu?a lake at ViramgÁm, of the gadhs or forts of Dadharapur, VadhwÁn Anantapur and ChubÁri, of the SardhÁr lake, of the gadhs of JhinjhuvÁ?a, Virpur, BhÁdula, VÁsingapura, and ThÁn, of the palaces of Kandola and Sihi Jagapura, of the reservoirs of DedÁdrÁ and KÍrtti-stambha and of Jitpur-Anantpura. It is doubtful how many of these were actually SiddharÁja’s works.?

73 One of the best preserved slabs was sent by Sir John Malcolm when Resident of MÁlwa to the Museum of the B. B. R. A. S., where it still lies. It has verses in twelfth century Prakrit in honour of a king, but nothing historical can be made out of it.?

74 See above page 170.?

75 DevasÚri was born in S. 1134 (a.d.1078), took dÍkshÁ in S. 1152 (a.d.1096), became a SÚri in S. 1174 (a.d.1118), and died on a Thursday in the dark half of SrÁva?a S. 1226 (a.d.1170). His famous disciple Hemachandra was born on the fullmoon of KÁrtika S. 1145 (a.d.1089), became an ascetic in S. 1150 (a.d.1094), and died in S. 1229 (a.d.1173).?

76 The PrÁkrit local name was Âno, of which the Sanskritised forms would appear to be Arno, Arnava, ÁnÁka, and Ánalla as given in the HammÍramahÁkÁvya. The genealogy of these kings of SÁkambhari or SÁmbhar is not settled. The Nadol copperplate dated Sam?vat 1218 gives the name of its royal grantor as Alan and of Alan’s father as MÁharaja (Tod’s RajasthÁn, I. 804), the latter apparently a mistake for AnarÁja which is the name given in the DvyÁsraya. Alan’s date being V. 1218, the date of his father Ána would fit in well with the early part of KumÁrapÁla’s reign. The order of the two names Álhana and Ánalla in the HammÍramahÁkÁvya would seem to be mistaken and ought to be reversed.?

77 KodinÁr is a town in GÁikwÁr territory in South KÁthiÁvÁ?a. This temple of AmbikÁ is noticed as a place of Jain pilgrimage by the sage JinaprabhasÚri in his TÍrthakalpa and was a well-known Jain shrine during the A?ahilavÁ?a period.?

78 The KumÁrapÁlaprabandha has Kelambapattana and Kolambapattana probably Kolam or Quilon.?

79 The KumÁrapÁlaprabandha says that Udayana was appointed minister and VÁgbha?a general. SollÁ the youngest son of Udayana did not take part in politics.?

80 Kirtane’s HammÍramahÁkÁvya, 13.?

81 Dhavalakka or Dholka according to the KumÁrapÁlaprabandha.?

82 According to the KumÁrapÁlacharita KumÁrapÁla’s sister who was married to Ána having heard her husband speak slightingly of the kings of GujarÁt took offence, resented the language, and bandied words with her husband who beat her. She came to her brother and incited him to make an expedition against her husband.?

83 The DvyÁsraya does not say that KumÁrapÁla’s sister was married to Ána.?

84 This was a common title of the SilÁhÁra kings. Compare Bombay Gazetteer, XIII. 437 note 1.?

85 Ámba?Á is his proper name. It is found Sanskritised into Ámrabha?a and Ambaka.?

86 This is the KÁverÍ river which flows through Chikhli and BalsÁr. The name in the text is very like KarabenÁ the name of the same river in the NÁsik cave inscriptions (Bom. Gaz. XVI. 571) KalÁvinÍ and KarabenÁ being Sanskritised forms of the original KÁveri. Perhaps the KÁveri is the Akabarou of the Periplus (a.d.247).?

87 Sausara or SÁsar seems the original form from which Samara was Sanskritised. SÁsar corresponds with the Mehr name ChÁchar.?

88 The KumÁrapÁlacharita says that Samara was defeated and his son placed on the throne.?

89 The translation of the inscription runs: Steps made by the venerable Ámbaka, Sam?vat 1222. According to the KumÁrapÁlaprabandha the steps were built at a cost of a lÁkh of drammas a dramma being of the value of about 5 annas. According to the PrabandhachintÁma?i an earthquake occurred when the king was at GirnÁr on his way to SomanÁtha. The old ascent of GirnÁr was from the north called ChhatrasilÁ that is the umbrella or overhanging rocks. HemÁchÁrya said if two persons went up together the ChhatrasilÁ rocks would fall and crush them. So the king ordered Ámrabha?a to build steps on the west or JunÁga?h face at a cost of 63 lÁkhs of drammas.?

90 The site of BÁha?apura seems to be the ruins close to the east of PÁlitÁna where large quantities of conch shell bangles and pieces of brick and tile have been found.?

91 This would appear to be the Kalachuri king GayÁ Kar?a whose inscription is dated 902 of the Chedi era that is a.d.1152. As the earliest known inscription of GayÁ Kar?a’s son Narasim?hadeva is dated a.d.1157 (Chedi 907) the death of GayÁ Kar?a falls between a.d.1152 and 1157 in the reign of KumÁrapÁla and the story of his being accidentally strangled may be true.?

92 So many marriages on one day points to the people being either Ka?va Kunbis or BharvÁ?s among whom the custom of holding all marriages on the same day still prevails.?

93 The text of the inscription is:

Lines broken below.?

94 Annals of RÁjasthÁn, I. 803.?

95 RÁs MÁlÁ (New Edition), 154.?

96 RÁs MÁlÁ (New Edition), 154.?

97 The text is:

?

98 It is also interesting, if there is a foundation of fact to the tale, that this is the temple visited by the Persian poet SaÁdi (a.d.1200–1230) when he saw the ivory idol of SomanÁtha whose arms were raised by a hidden priest pulling a cord. According to SaÁdi on pretence of conversion he was admitted behind the shrine, discovered the cord-puller, threw him into a well, and fled. Compare Journal Royal Asiatic Society Bengal VII.–2 pages 885–886. That SaÁdi ever visited SomanÁtha is doubtful. No ivory human image can ever have been the chief object of worship at SomanÁtha.?

99 From the PrabandhachintÁma?i and the KumÁrapÁlacharita.?

100 The head-quarters of the Dhandhuka sub-division sixty miles south-west of AhmadÁbÁd.?

101 Another reading is LÁhinÍ.?

102 PrabandhachintÁma?i.?

103

?

104 ?????? ???? ????????? ? ???? ?????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????.?

105 Regarding the remarkable story that not long before their deaths both HemÁchÁrya and KumÁrapÁla inclined towards if they did not become converts to IslÁm (Tod’s Western India, 184) no fresh information has been obtained. Another curious saying of Tod’s (Ditto, 182) also remains doubtful. KumÁrapÁla expelled the tribe of LÁr from his kingdom. That this tribe of LÁr can have had to do either with LÁ?a or South GujarÁt or with the caste of LÁd VÁnis seems unlikely. The alternative is PÁrsis from Lar on the Persian Gulf whom Tod (Annals of RajasthÁn, I. 235) notices as sending an expedition from LaristhÁn to GujarÁt. In this connection it is worthy of note that LÁr remained the seat of a Gueber prince till a.d.1600 the time of Shah Abas (D’Herbelot Bib. Or. II. 477). A repetition of the PÁrsi riots (Cambay Gazetteer, VI. 215) may have been the cause of their expulsion from GujarÁt.?

106 See the DvyÁsraya. A Patan inscription lying at VerÁval also calls AjayapÁla the brother’s son of KumÁrapÁla.?

107 It is stated in a grant of BhÍma II. dated S. 1283, that Ajayadeva, as he is there called, made the SapÁdalaksha or SÁmbhar king tributary. Ind. Ant. VI. 199ff.?

108 The Udayapura inscription mentions Somesvara as the minister of AjayapÁla in Sam?vat 1229 (a.d.1173). See above page 193.?

109 The abuse of AjayapÁla is explained if Tod’s statement (Western India, 191) that he became a MusalmÁn is correct.?

110 Fleet’s KÁnarese Dynasties, 93.?

111 Chapter II. Verse 57.?

112 We know much less about this event than its importance deserves, for with the exception of a raid made in a.d.1197 by one of the Ghori generals this victory secured GujarÁt from any serious Muhammadan attack for more than a century. We learn from various grants made by BhÍmadeva II. (Ind. Ant VI. 195, 198, 200, 201) that MÚlarÁja’s regular epithet in the Vam?sÁvalÍ was “He who overcame in battle the ruler of the Garjjanakas, who are hard to defeat”: and Dr. BÜhler has pointed out (Ditto, 201) that Garjjanaka is a Sanskritising of the name Ghaznavi. As a matter of fact, however, the leader of the MusalmÁn army was Muhammad of Ghor, and the battle took place in a.d.1178 (H. 574). One of the two Muhammadan writers who mentions the invasion (Muhammad ’Ufi, who wrote at Delhi about a.d.1211) says that Muhammad was at first defeated, but invaded the country a second time two years later “and punished the people for their previous misconduct.” But this is only mentioned incidentally as part of an anecdote of Muhammad’s equity, and there is some confusion with Muhammad’s victory in the second battle of NÁrÁyan (in Jaipur territory) in a.d.1192, as a better, though slightly later authority, MinhÁj-us-SirÁj, speaks of no second expedition to GujarÁt led by Muhammad himself. MinhÁj-us-SirÁj’s account of the defeat is as follows (Elliott, II. 294): He (Muhammad) conducted his army by way of Uch and MultÁn towards NahrwÁlÁ. The RÁÍ of NahrwÁlÁ, BhÍmdeo, was a minor, but he had a large army and many elephants. In the day of battle the Muhammadans were defeated and the SultÁn was compelled to retreat. This happened in the year 574 H. (1178 a.d.)”. Further on we read (Elliott, II. 300): “In 593 H. (1197 a.d.) he (Muhammad’s general Kutb-ud-dÍn) went towards NahrwÁlÁ, defeated RÁÍ BhÍmdeo, and took revenge on the part of the SultÁn.” As no conquest of the country is spoken of, this expedition was evidently a mere raid. The only inaccuracy in the account is the mention of BhÍma instead of MÚlarÁja as the king who defeated the first invasion.—(A. M. T. J.)?

113 Sarga II. Verse 47.?

114 Sarga II. Verse 60.?

115 The VichÁrasre?i also gives S. 1235 as the beginning of his reign.?

116 Elliot’s History of India, II. 294. This event properly belongs to the reign of MÚlarÁja. See above page 195 note 5.?

117 Ind. Ant. VI. 207.?

118 Chapter II. Verse 61.?

119 Kielhorn’s and Peterson’s Reports on Sanskrit Manuscripts.?

120 Ind. Ant. VI. 197.?

121 The text is ??????????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???? ????.?

122 The text is ???? ??? that is ??????? ????. The term RÁ?aka would show him to be a ChohÁn chief.?