It is also possible to show that more than a century later the Chávaḍás were distinct from the Gurjjaras. The Kánarese poet Pampa, writing in a.d. 941,[32] states that the father of his patron Arikesari vanquished Mahipála king of the Gurjjaras, who may be identified with the Mahipála who is named as overlord in the grant of Dharaṇívaráha of Wadhwán,[33] dated a.d. 914. As no Mahipála occurs in the Chávaḍá lists, the Gurjjara kingdom must be sought elsewhere than at Aṇahilaváḍa. Since the Gurjjaras of the eighth and ninth century inscriptions cannot be identified either with the Valabhis, the Broach Gurjjaras, or the Aṇahilaváḍa Chávaḍás, they must represent some other family of rulers. A suitable dynasty seems to be supplied by Hiuen Tsiang’s kingdom of Kiu-che-lo or Gurjjara, the capital of which he calls Pi-lo-mo-lo.[34] The French translators took Pi-lo-mo-lo to be Bálmer in Rájputána. But Dr. Bühler following the late Colonel Watson, identifies it, no doubt rightly, with Bhinmál or Bhilmál.[35]
Appendix III.
Bhinmál.
History. A short sketch of the history of the Gurjjaras, so far as it can be pieced together from contemporary sources, may help to show the probability of these identifications. The Gurjjaras apparently entered India in the fifth century a.d. The earliest notice of them occurs in the Śrí Harshacharita, a work of the early seventh century, in which during the early years of the seventh century Prabhákaravardhana the father of Śrí Harsha of Magadha (a.d. 606–641) is said to have conquered the king of Gandhára, the Húṇas, the king of Sindh, the Gurjjaras, the Láṭas, and the king of Málava.[36] The date of their settlement at Bhinmál is unknown, but as their king was recognised as a Kshatriya in Hiuen Tsiang’s time (c. 640 a.d.) it probably was not later than a.d. 550. Towards the end of the sixth century (c. 585) they seem to have conquered northern Gujarát and Broach and to have forced the Valabhis (a.d. 509–766) to acknowledge their supremacy. (See above page [465].) They took very kindly to Indian culture, for in a.d. 628 the astronomer Brahmagupta wrote his Siddhánta at Bhinmál under king Vyághramukha, who, he states, belonged to the Śrí Chápa dynasty.[37] This valuable statement not only gives the name of the Gurjjara royal house but at the same time proves the Gurjjara origin of the Chápoṭkaṭas or Chávoṭakas, that is the Chávaḍás of later times. This Vyághramukha is probably the same as the Gurjjara king whom in his inscription of S. 556 (a.d. 634) Pulakeśi II. claims to have subdued.[38] A few years later (c. 640 a.d.) Hiuen Tsiang describes the king (probably Vyághramukha’s successor) as a devout Buddhist and just twenty years of age. The country was populous and wealthy, but Buddhists were few and unbelievers many. The Gurjjaras did not long retain their southern conquests. In Hiuen Tsiang’s time both Kaira (Kie-cha) and Vadnagar (Ánandapura) belonged to Málava, while the Broach chiefs probably submitted to the Chálukyas. No further reference to the Bhinmál kingdom has been traced until after the Arab conquest of Sindh when (a.d. 724–750) the Khalifa’s governor Junaid sent his plundering bands into all the neighbouring countries and attacked among other places Márwád (Márwár), Maliba (Málwa), Barus (Broach), Uzain (Ujjain), Al Bailamán (Bhilmál ?), and Jurz (Gurjjara).[39] As noticed above the contemporary Chálukya plate of a.d. 738–9 also mentions Gurjjara as one of the kingdoms attacked. After these events the Arabs seem to have confined themselves to raiding the coast towns of Káthiáváḍa without attacking inland states such as Bhinmál. Immediately after the Arab raids ceased the Gurjjaras had to meet a new enemy the Ráshṭrakúṭas who after supplanting the Chálukyas in the Dakhan turned their attention northwards. Dantidurga in his Samangad grant of a.d. 753–4[40] speaks of ploughing the banks of the Mahí and the Revá (Narbada), and in his Elura inscription[41] of conquering among other countries Málava Láṭa and Tanka.[42] A few years later (a.d. 757–58) a branch of the main Ráshṭrakúṭa line established its independence in Láṭa in the person of Kakka.
Appendix III.
Bhinmál.
History. The next notice of the Gurjjaras occurs in the Rádhanpur and Van-Dindori grants of Govinda III.[43] who states that his father Dhruva (c. 780–800 a.d.) caused “Vatsarája, intoxicated with the goddess of the sovereignty of Gauḍa that he had acquired with ease, to enter upon the path of misfortune in the centre of Maru” and took from him the two white umbrellas of Gauḍa. As already stated, a comparison with the Baroda grant of Karka II.[44] shows that this Vatsarája was a Gurjjara king and that he had made extensive conquests in Upper India as far east as Bengal. Now it is notable that the genealogies of two of the most important Agnikula races, the Paramáras and the Chauháns, go back to this very time (c. 800 a.d.)[45]. Taking this fact in connection with the prevalence of the surnames Pavár and Chaván among Gujars in such remote provinces as the Panjáb and Khándesh, it seems obvious that these two tribes and therefore also the two other Agnikula races, the Parihárs and Solaṅkis are, if not of Gurjjara origin, at all events members of the great horde of northern invaders whom the Gurjjaras led. The agreement between this theory and the Agnikula legends of Ábu need only be pointed out to be admitted. The origin of the modern Rájput races has always been one of the puzzles of Indian history. This suggestion seems to offer at least a partial solution.
The Rádhanpur grant (a.d. 807–8) further states that when the Gurjjara saw Govinda III. approaching, he fled in fear to some unknown hiding-place. This probably means no more than that Vatsarája did not oppose Govinda in his march to the Vindhyas. The next reference is in the Baroda grant of Karka II. of Gujarát who boasts that his father Indra (c. 810 a.d.) alone caused the leader of the Gurjjara lords to flee. Karka adds that he himself, for the purpose of protecting Málava, “who had been struck down,” made his arm the door-bar of the country of Gurjjareśvara, who “had become evilly inflamed” by the conquest of Gauḍa and Vanga.[46] It is difficult to avoid supposing that we have here a reference to the Paramára conquest of Málwa and that Karka checked the southward march of the victorious army. For some years no further mention has been traced of the Gurjjaras. But in a.d. 851 the Arab merchant Sulaiman states[47] that the king of Juzr was one of the kings “around” the Balhára, that is the Ráshṭrakúṭa, and that he was very hostile to the Musalmáns, which is not surprising, considering how his kingdom was exposed to the Arab raids from Sindh. Dhruva III. of Broach, in his Bagumrá grant of a.d. 867[48] speaks of “the host of the powerful Gurjjaras” as one of the dangerous enemies he had to fear. About a.d. 890 a Gurjjara chief named Alakhána ceded Takkadeśa in the Panjáb to Śankaravarmman of Kashmir.[49] But as Alakhána was a vassal of Lalliya, the Śáhi of Ohind near Swát, this event did not affect the Bhínmál empire. To about a.d. 900 belongs the notice of the Ráshṭrakúṭa Kṛishṇa II. in the Deoli and Navsári grants[50] where he is stated to have frightened the Gurjjaras, destroyed the pride of Láṭa, and deprived the coast people of sleep. His fights with the Gurjjaras are compared to the storms of the rainy season, implying that while the relations of the two empires continued hostile, neither was able to gain any decisive advantage over the other. To this same period belongs Ibn Khurdádba’s (a.d. 912) statement[51] that the king of Juzr was the fourth
Appendix III.
Bhinmál.
History. in rank of the kings of India and that the Tátariya dirhams were used in his country. In connection with the latter point it is worth noting that the pattávali of the Upakeśagaccha[52] gives a story which distinctly connects the origin of the Gadhia coinage with Bhínmál.[53] The grant of Dharaṇívaráha, the Chápa chief of Vadhván, dated a.d. 914[54] gives us the name of his overlord Mahipála, who, as already pointed out, must be identified with the Mahipála who was defeated by the Karnátak king Narasiṃha.[55] The fact that Vadhván was a Chápa dependency implies that Aṇahilaváḍa was one also. We may in fact conclude that throughout the Chávaḍá period Aṇahilaváḍa was a mere feudatory of Bhínmál, a fact which would account for the obscurities and contradictions of Chávaḍá history.
The Deoli grant of the Ráshṭrakúṭa Kṛishṇa III. which is dated a.d. 940[56] describes the king’s victories in the south as causing the hope of Kálanjara and Chitrakúṭa to drop away from the heart of the Gurjjara. At this time Kalinjar belonged to the Kalachuris of Central India and Chitrakúṭa or Chitoḍ to the Gehlots of Mewáḍ and the phrase used by Kṛishṇa implies that the Gurjjara chief had his eye on these two famous fortresses and had perhaps already besieged them unsuccessfully. In either case this notice is evidence of the great and far-reaching power of the Gurjjaras. Masudi (a.d. 915) notices that the king of Juzr was frequently at war with the Balhara (Ráshṭrakúṭa) and that he had a large army and many horses and camels.
A Chandel stone inscription from Khajuráho describes Yaśovarmman and Lakshavarmman as successful in war against Gauḍas, Khaśas, Kosalas, Kásmíras, Maithilas, Málavas, Chedis, Kurus, and Gurjjaras.[57] And soon after about a.d. 953 during the reign of Bhímasena a migration of 18,000 Gurjjaras from Bhínmál is recorded.[58] The memory of this movement remains in the traditions of the Gujars of Khándesh into which they passed with their carts in large numbers by way of Málwa.[59] An important result of this abandonment of Bhínmál was the transfer of overlordship from Bhínmál to Aṇahilaváḍa whose first Chálukya or Solaṅki king Múlarája (a.d. 961–996) is, about a.d. 990, described as being accompanied by the chief of Bhinmál as a subordinate ally in his war with Graharipu (see above page [451]). The Gurjjara or Bhinmál empire seems to have broken into several sections of which the three leading portions were the Chauháns of Sámbhar, the Paramáras of Málwa, and the Solaṅkis of Aṇahilaváḍa.
The inscriptions which follow throw a certain amount of light on the history of Bhinmál during and after the Solaṅki period. The two earliest
Appendix III.
Bhinmál.
History. in date (Nos. 1 and 2) which are probably of the tenth century, give no historical details. Nos. 3 and 4 show that between a.d. 1057 and 1067 Bhinmál was ruled by the Mahárájádhirája Kṛishṇarája of the Paramára race. This is a valuable confirmation of Rájput tradition, according to which[60] the Paramára Rája of Ábu was followed by the prince of Śrímála, when he aided Múlarája against Graharipu (c. 990 a.d.) and the Paramáras remained paramount in this region until the beginning of the thirteenth century.[61] The title of Mahárájádhirája meant much less at this period than it meant before the Valabhi kings had cheapened it. Still it shows that Kṛishṇarája’s rank was considerably higher than that of a mere feudatory chieftain. Inscription No. 3 gives the names of Kṛishṇarája’s father Dhaṁdhuka and of his grandfather Devarája. The first of these two names occurs in the main line of Ábu as the successor of Dhúmarája the first Paramára sovereign.[62] According to Rájput tradition the Paramáras were at one time supreme in Marásthalí and held all the nine castles of the Waste. But in the historical period their chief possessions in Márwád lay about Ábu and Chandrávati, though we have a glimpse of another branch maintaining itself at Kerálu near Bádmer.[63] The Paramára chiefs of Ábu are constantly referred to in the Solaṅki annals, and during the golden age of the Solaṅki monarchy (a.d. 1094–1174) they were the vassals of that power, and their Bhinmál branch, if it was ever a distinct chiefship, probably followed the fortunes of the main line, though the Bhinmál inscriptions give us no facts for this long period. The next item of information is given by Inscription 5, which is dated in the Saṁvat year 1239 (a.d. 1183) in the reign of the Maháraul Śrí Jayatasíha-deva. This name is of special interest, as it can hardly be doubted that we have here to do with that “Jaitsí Parmár” of Ábu whose daughter’s beauty caused the fatal feud between “Bhíma Solaṅki” of Aṇahilaváḍa and Prithiráj Chohán of Delhi.[64] The title of Mahâraul is to be noted as indicating the decline of the family from the great days of Kṛishṇarája.
Towards the end of the thirteenth century the old world was falling to pieces, and the Paramáras lost one after another nearly all their ancient possessions to the Choháns of Náḍol. Bhinmál must have fallen about a.d. 1200 or a few years before, for Inscription No. 6 is dated Saṁvat 1262 (a.d. 1206) in the reign of the Mahárájádhirája Śrí Udayasiṁhadêva, who, as we learn from Inscription 12, was the son of the Maháraul Śrí Samarasiṁhadeva, of the Chohán race. The sudden rise of the son to greatness is implied in the difference of title and it may be inferred that Udayasiṁha himself was the conqueror of Bhinmál, though the capture of Ábu is ascribed by Forbes to a chief named Lúniga.[65]
Inscriptions Nos. 6 to 8 being dated in the reign of Udayasiṁha, show that he lived to at least the year a.d. 1249 and therefore reigned at least forty-three years. He is also referred to in the Inscription No. 10, dated a.d. 1274, but in a way that does not necessarily imply that he was still alive, as the record only speaks of an endowment for his spiritual benefit, made by a person who was perhaps an old retainer. His name also occurs in the genealogy in No. 12. His reign was apparently a prosperous one but no historical facts beyond those already noted are known about him.
Appendix III.
Bhinmál.
History. Inscription No. 12 shows that Udayasiṁha had a son named Váhaḍhasiṁha, who, as he is given no royal title, probably died before his father. Udayasiṁha’s successor, or at all events the next king in whose reign grants are dated, was Cáciga, who is given the title of Maháraul in Inscriptions 11 (a.d. 1277) and 12 (a.d. 1278).[66] His relationship to Udayasiṁha does not clearly appear, but he was probably either an elder brother or an uncle of the Cámuṇḍa for whose benefit the gift recorded in Inscription 12 was made and who seems to be a grandson of Udayasiṁha. Cáciga appears to be the Mahámaṇḍaleśvara Cáciga of Inscription 15 in the Bháunagar State Collection (Bháu. Prá. I. list page 5) which is stated to bear the date Saṁvat 1332 (a.d. 1276) and to be engraved on a pillar in the temple of Pársvanátha at Ratanpur near Jodhpúr. It is clear that he was tributary to some greater power though it is not easy to say who his suzerain was. At this period Márwár was in a state of chaos under the increasing pressure of the Ráthoḍs. Only five years after Cáciga’s last date (a.d. 1278) we meet with the name of a new ruler, the Maháraul Śrí Sámvatasiṁha. He is mentioned in Inscriptions 13 (a.d. 1283) 14 (a.d. 1286) and 15 (a.d. 1289) and also in 44 of the Bháunagar Collection (a.d. 1296 Bháu. Prá. I. list page 13) from a Jain temple at Juná. He is not stated to have belonged to the same family as the previous rulers, but he bears the family title of Maháraul, and it may be inferred with probability that he was a son of Cáciga. He reigned for at least thirteen years (a.d. 1283–1296). It must have been about a.d. 1300 or a little later, that the Choháns were deprived of Bhinmál by the Ráthoḍs and the line of Udayasiṁha died out.[67]