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

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

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

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

Dadda III. Báhusaháya, C. 675–700.Jayabhaṭa’s son, Dadda III. Báhusaháya, is described as waging wars with the great kings of the east and of the west (probably Málava and Valabhi). He was the first Śaiva of the family, studied Manu’s works, and strictly enforced “the duties of the varṇas or castes and of the áśramas or Bráhman stages.” It was probably to him that the Gurjjaras owed their Puráṇic pedigree and their recognition as true Kshatriyas. Like his predecessors, Dadda III.
Chapter X.
The Gurjjaras, a.d. 580–808.
Dadda III. Báhusaháya, C. 675–700. was not an independent ruler. He could claim only the five great titles, though no hint is given who was his suzerain. His immediate superior may have been Jayasiṃha the Chálukya, who received the province of Láṭa from his brother Vikramáditya (c. 669–680 a.d.)[23]

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

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

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

Dr. Bhagvánlál’s (Ind. Ant. XIII. 70) chief grounds for holding that the Umetá and Iláo grants (the Bagumrá grant was unknown to him) were forgeries were:

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

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

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

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