Read Ebook: History of Gujarát Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency Volume I Part I. by Campbell James M

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 1490 lines and 257524 words, and 30 pages

THE MIHIRAS OR MERS.

A.D. 470-900.

That the Guptas held sway in K?thi?v?da till the time of Skandagupta is proved by the fact that his Sorath Viceroy is mentioned in Skandagupta's inscription on the Girn?r rock. After Skandagupta under the next known Gupta king Budhagupta no trace remains of Gupta sovereignty in Sorath. It is known that Budhagupta was a weak king and that the Gupta kingdom had already entered on its decline and lost its outlying provinces. Who held Sur?shtra and Gujar?t during the period of Gupta decline until the arrival and settlement of Bhatk?rka in A.D. 514 is not determined. Still there is reason to believe that during or shortly after the time of Budhagupta some other race or dynasty overthrew the Gupta Viceroy of these provinces and took them from the Guptas. These powerful conquerors seem to be the tribe of Maitrakas mentioned in Valabhi copperplates as people who had settled in K?thi?v?da and established a mandala or kingdom. Though these Maitrakas are mentioned in no other records from Sur?shtra there seems reason to identify the Maitrakas with the Mihiras the well-known tribe of Mhers or Mers. In Sanskrit both mitra and mihira are names of the sun, and it would be quite in agreement with the practise of Sanskrit writers to use derivatives of the one for those of the other. These Mhers or Mers are still found in K?thi?v?da settled round the Barda hills while the Porbandar chiefs who are known as Jethv?s are recognized as the head of the tribe. The name Jethv? is not a tribal but a family name, being taken from the proper or personal name of the ancestor of the modern chiefs. As the Porbandar chiefs are called the kings of the Mhers they probably belong to the same tribe, though, being chiefs, they try, like other ruling families, to rank higher than their tribe tracing their origin from Han?m?n. Though the Jethv?s appear to have been long ashamed to acknowledge themselves to belong to the Mher tribe the founders of minor Mher kingdoms called themselves Mher kings. The Porbandar chiefs have a tradition tracing their dynasty to Makaradhvaja son of Han?m?n, and there are some Pur?nic legends attached to the tradition. The historical kernel of the tradition appears to be that the Mhers or Jethv?s had a makara or fish as their flag or symbol. One of the mythical stories of Makaradhvaja is that he fought with May?radhvaja. Whatever coating of fable may have overlaid the story, it contains a grain of history. May?radhvaja stands for the Guptas whose chief symbol was a peacock may?ra, and with them Makaradhvaja that is the people with the fish-symbol that is the Mhers had a fight. This fight is probably the historical contest in which the Mhers fought with and overthrew the Gupta Viceroy of K?thi?v?da.

A similar copperplate in which the king's name appears in the slightly different form J?ikadeva has been found at Dhiniki in the same neighbourhood as the first and like it bearing the fish mark. This copperplate describes the king as ruling at Bh?milik? or Bh?mli in Sorath and gives him the high titles of Parama-bhatt?raka-Mah?r?j?dhir?ja-Paramesvara, that is Great Lord Great King of Kings Great King, titles which imply wide extent and independence of rule. This grant purports to be made on the occasion of a solar eclipse on Sunday Vikrama Samvat 794 Jyeshtha constellation, the no-moon of the second half of K?rttika. This would be A.D. 738 or 166 years before the J?chika of the Morb? plate. Against this it is to be noted that the letters of this plate, instead of appearing as old as eighth century letters, look later than the letters of the tenth century Morb? plate. As neither the day of the week, the constellation, nor the eclipse work out correctly Dr. Bhagv?nl?l believed the plate to be a forgery of the eleventh century, executed by some one who had seen a fish-marked copperplate of J?chika dated in the Saka era. It should however be noted that the names of ministers and officers which the plate contains give it an air of genuineness. Whether the plate is or is not genuine, it is probably true that J?ikadeva was a great independent sovereign ruling at Bh?mli. Though the names of the other kings of the dynasty, the duration of the Bh?mli kingdom, and the details of its history are unknown it may be noted that the dynasty is still represented by the Porbandar chiefs. Though at present Bh?mli is deserted several ruined temples of about the eleventh century stand on its site. It is true no old inscriptions have been found; it is not less true that no careful search has been made about Bh?mli.

Early in the tenth century a wave of invasion from Sindh seems to have spread over Kacch and K?thi?v?da. Among the invading tribes were the J?dej?s of Kacch and the Ch?d?sam?s of Sorath, who like the Bhattis of Jesalm?r call themselves of the Yaduvamsa stock. Doctor Bhagv?nl?l held that the Ch?d?sam?s were originally of the ?bh?ra tribe, as their traditions attest connection with the ?bh?ras and as the description of Graharipu one of their kings by Hemachandra in his Dvy?sraya points to his being of some local tribe and not of any ancient R?jput lineage. Further in their bardic traditions as well as in popular stories the Ch?d?sam?s are still commonly called ?hera-r?n?s. The position of Aberia in Ptolemy seems to show that in the second century the Ahirs were settled between Sindh and the Panj?b. Similarly it may be suggested that J?dej? is a corruption of Jaudhej? which in turn comes from Yaudheya who in Kshatrapa Inscriptions appear as close neighbours of the Ahirs. After the fall of the Valabhis the Yaudheyas seem to have established themselves in Kacch and the Ahirs settled and made conquests in K?thi?v?da. On the decline of local rule brought about by these incursions and by the establishment of an Ahir or Ch?d?sam? kingdom at Jun?gadh, the Jethv?s seem to have abandoned Bh?mli which is close to Jun?gadh and gone to Sr?nagar or K?ntelun near Porbandar which is considered to have been the seat of Jethv? power before Porbandar.

A copperplate found at Hadd?l? on the road from Dholka to Dhandhuka dated A.D. 917 shows that there reigned at Vadhw?n a king named Dharan?var?ha of the Ch?pa dynasty, who granted a village to one Mahesvar?ch?rya, an apostle of the ?mard?ka S?kh? of Saivism. Dharan?var?ha and his ancestors are described as feudatory kings, ruling by the grace of the feet of the great king of kings the great lord the illustrious Mah?p?ladeva. This Mah?p?la would seem to be some great king of K?thi?v?da reigning in A.D. 917 over the greater part of the province. Dr. Bhagv?nl?l had two coins of this king of about that time, one a copper coin the other a silver coin. The coins were found near Jun?gadh. The copper coin, about ten grains in weight, has one side obliterated but the other side shows clearly the words R?n? Sr? Mah?p?la Deva. The silver coin, about fourteen grains in weight, has on the obverse a well-executed elephant and on the reverse the legend R?n? Sr? Mah?p?la Deva. From the locality where the name Mah?p?la appears both in coins and inscriptions, and from the fact that the more reliable Ch?d?sam? lists contain similar names, it may be assumed as probable that Mah?p?la was a powerful Ch?d?sam? ruler of K?thi?v?da in the early part of the tenth century.

After the fall of Valabhi no other reliable record remains of any dynasty ruling over the greater part of Gujar?t. The most trustworthy and historical information is in connection with the Ch?vad?s of Anahilapura. Even for the Ch?vad?s nothing is available but scant references recorded by Jain authors in their histories of the Solankis and V?ghel?s.

The name of the family is said to have been derived from Ch?d?chandra the first ruler of Vanthal? . Traces of a different tradition are to be found in the Tuhfat-ul-Kir?m which gives a list of Ch?d?sam?'s ancestors from Nuh , including not only Krishna the Y?dava but also R?ma of the solar line. In this pedigree the Musalm?n element is later than the others: but the attempt to combine the solar and lunar lines is a sure sign that the Samma clan was not of Hindu origin, and that it came under Hindu influence fairly late though before Sindh became a Musalm?n province. This being admitted it follows that the Sammas were one of the numerous tribes that entered India during the existence of the Turkish empire in Transoxiana . In this connection it is noteworthy that some of the J?ms bore such Turkish names as Tam?chi, Tughlik, and Sanj?r.

The migration of the Sammas to Kacch is ascribed by the Tar?kh-i-Tahiri to the tyranny of the S?mra chiefs. The Sammas found Kacch in the possession of the Ch?waras, who treated them kindly, and whom they requited by seizing the fort of G?ntr? by a stratagem similar to that which brought about the fall of Girn?r.

Jethv?s reached K?thi?v?da in the latter half of the fifth century after Christ, and the Jh?l?s, and perhaps a second detachment of Mers and Jethv?s, some three hundred years later. The three tribes differ widely in numbers and in distribution. The ruling Jethv?s are a small group found solely in south-west K?thi?v?da. The Jh?l?s, who are also known as Makv?nas, are a much larger clan. They not only fill north-east K?thi?v?da, but from K?thi?v?da, about A.D. 1500, spread to R?jput?na and have there established a second Jh?l?v?da, where, in reward for their devotion to the Sesodia R?ja of Mew?d in his struggles with the Emperor Akbar , the chief was given a daughter of the Udepur family and raised to a high position among R?jputs. The Mers are a numerous and widespread race. They seem to be the sixth to tenth century Medhs, Meds, Mands, or Mins of Baluchist?n, South-Sindh, Kacch, and K?thi?v?da. Further they seem to be the Mers of Mev?da or Medapatha in R?jput?na and of Mairv?da in M?lava, and also to be the Musalm?n Meos and Minas of Northern India. In Gujar?t their strength is much greater than the 30,000 or 40,000 returned as Mers. One branch of the tribe is hidden under the name Koli; another has disappeared below the covering of Isl?m.

Formerly except the vague contention that the Medh?s, Jhetv?s, and Jh?la-Makv?n?s were northerners of somewhat recent arrival little evidence was available either to fix the date of their appearance in K?thi?v?da or to determine to which of the many swarms of non-Hindu Northerners they belonged. This point Dr. Bhagv?nl?l's remarks in the text go far to clear. The chief step is the identification of the Mers with the Maitrakas, the ruling power in K?thi?v?da between the decline of the Guptas about A.D. 470 and the establishment of Valabhi rule about sixty years later. And further that they fought at the same time against the same Hindu rulers and that both are described as foreigners and northerners favours the identification of the power of the Maitrakas with the North Indian empire of the Epthalites, Yethas, or White H?nas.

Though the sameness in name between the Mihiras and Mihirakula , the great Indian champion of the White H?nas, may not imply sameness of tribe it points to a common sun-worship.

That the Mult?n sun-worship was introduced under Sassanian influence is supported by the fact that the figure of the sun on the fifth century Hindu sun coins is in the dress of a Persian king; that the priests who performed the Mult?n sun-worship were called Magas; and by the details of the dress and ritual in the account of the introduction of sun-worship given in the Bhavishya Pur?na. That the Meyds or Mands had some share in its introduction is supported by the fact that the Pur?na names the third or Sudra class of the sun-worshippers Mandagas. That the Meyds were associated with the Magas is shown by the mention of the Magas as Mihiragas. The third class whom the Bhavishya Pur?na associates with the introduction of sun-worship are the M?nas who are given a place between the Magas and the Mands. The association of the M?nas with the Mihiras or Maitrakas suggests that M?na is Mauna a Pur?nic name for the White H?nas. That the Mult?n sun idol of the sixth and seventh centuries was a H?na idol and Mult?n the capital of a H?na dynasty seems in agreement with the paramount position of the Rais of Alor or Rori in the sixth century. Though their defeat by Yesodharmman of M?lwa about A.D. 540 at the battle of Karur, sixty miles east of Mult?n, may have ended H?na supremacy in north and north-west India it does not follow that authority at once forsook the H?nas. Their widespread and unchallenged dominion in North India, the absence of record of any reverse later than the Karur defeat, the hopelessness of any attempt to pass out of India in the face of the combined Turk and Sassanian forces make it probable that the H?nas and their associated tribes, adopting Hinduism and abandoning their claim to supremacy, settled in west and north-west India. This view finds support in the leading place which the H?nas and H?ra-H?nas, the Maitrakas or Mers, and the Gurjjaras hold in the centuries that follow the overthrow of the White H?na empire. According to one rendering of Cosmas the chief of Orrhotha or Sorath in common with several other coast rulers owed allegiance to Gollas, apparently, as is suggested at page 75 of the text, to Gulla or Mihirgulla the Indian Emperor of the White H?nas. These details support the view that the Maitrakas, Mihiras, or Mers who in Cosmas' time were in power in K?thi?v?da, and to whose ascendancy during the seventh and eighth centuries both the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang and the Arab historians of Sindh bear witness, were a portion of the great White H?na invasion . In the many recorded swarmings south from Central Asia into Persia and India no feature is commoner than the leading of the conquered by certain families of the conquering tribe. Chinese authorities place it beyond doubt that when, towards the middle of the fifth century A.D., the White H?nas crossed the Oxus they found in power a cognate tribe of northerners whose date of settlement on the Indian frontier was less than a century old. This preceding swarm was the Yu?n-Yu?n, Var-Var, or Av?r, who, about the close of the fourth century , had driven from Balkh southwards into the K?bul valley Kitolo the last ruler of the long established Yuetchi . It is known that in retreating before the Yu?n-Yu?n a division of the Baktrian Yuetchi, under the leadership of Kitolo's son, under the name of the Kid?ras or Little Yuetchi, established their power in Gandh?ra and Pesh?war. This Kid?ra invasion must have driven a certain share of the people of the K?bul valley to the east of the Indus. The invasion of the White H?nas a century later, who were welcomed as allies by some of the Panj?b chiefs, would cause fresh movements among the frontier tribes. The welcome given to the H?nas, and the show and dash which marked their century of ascendancy in India and Persia, make it probable that as leaders they conducted south as far as K?thi?v?da and M?lava large bodies of the earlier northern settlers. To which of the waves of earlier northerners the Medhs belonged is doubtful. The view held by Pandit Bhagv?nl?l that one branch of the Medhs entered India in the first century before Christ among the tribes of which the great Yuechi were the chief is on the whole in agreement with General Cunningham's argument that Medus Hydaspes, Virgil's phrase for the Jhelum, proves that the Medhs were then already settled on its banks.

Dr. Bhagv?nl?l's view that the Jethv?s are Medhs ennobled by long overlordship is somewhat doubtfully shared by Colonel Watson and is not inconsistent with Tod's opinions. Still though the Hindu ruler-worship, which, as in the case of the Mar?tha Siv?ji, explains the raising to the twice-born of leaders of successful early and foreign tribes makes it possible that the Jethv?s were originally Mers, it seems on the whole probable that the Jethv?s' claim to an origin distinct from the Mers is well founded. The evidence recorded by Colonel Tod and the name Jethva led the late Dr. John Wilson to trace the Jethv?s to the J?ts or Jits. According to the bards the name of the K?thi?v?da tribe Jethva is derived from Jetha No. 85 or No. 95 of the Porbandar list, who was probably so called because he was born under the Jyeshtha constellation. The common practice of explaining a tribal name by inventing some name-giving chief deprives this derivation of most of its probability. In the present case it may further be noticed that the name Jethi is borne by two of the chiefs earlier than the Jetha referred to. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation the name Jethva suggests an origin in Yetha the shortened Chinese form of Ye-ta-i-li-to or Ephthalite the name of the ruling class of the White H?nas. It is true that so good an authority as Specht holds that the shortened form Yetha is peculiar to the Chinese and was never in use. But the form Tetal or Haital, adopted by Armenian Musalm?n and Byzantine historians, makes probable an Indian Yeth?l or Jeth?l if not a Yetha or Jetha. Nor does there seem any reason why Yetha the Chinese form of the word should not be more likely to be adopted in India than the western and otherwise less correct form Tetal or Haithal. In any case the irregular change from a correct Yeth?l to an incorrect Yetha cannot be considered of much importance, if, as seems likely, the change was made in order to give the word an Indian meaning. The v in Jethva would come to be added when the origin from a chief named Jetha was accepted.

Another name for the White H?nas, or for a section of the White H?na swarm, is preserved by Cosmas in the form Juvia. This form, if it is not a misreading for Ounia or H?na, suggests J?uvla the recently identified name of the tribe ennobled in India by the great Toram?na and his son Mihirakula , and of which a trace seems to remain in the J?wla and Jh?wla divisions of Panj?b Gujjars. This J?uvla, under such a fire baptism as would admit the holders of the name among Hindus, might be turned into Jv?la flaming and Jv?la be shortened to Jh?la. That Jh?la was formerly punningly connected with flame is shewn by a line from the bard Chand, 'The lord of the R?n?s the powerful Jh?la like a flaming fire.' That the K?thi?v?da bards were either puzzled by the name Jh?la or were unwilling to admit its foreign origin is shewn by the story preserved in the R?s M?l?, that the tribe got the name because the children of Hirp?l Makv?na, about to be crushed by an elephant, were snatched away jh?la by their witch-mother. It has been noticed in the text that the break in Gujar?t History between A.D. 480 and 520, agreeing with the term of H?na supremacy in North India, seems to imply a similar supremacy in Gujar?t. The facts that up to the twelfth century H?nas held a leading place in Gujar?t chronicles, and that while in R?jput?na and other parts of Northern India the traces of Huns are fairly widespread in Gujar?t they have almost if not altogether disappeared, support the view that the H?na strain in K?thi?v?da is hid under the names Mera, Jethva, and Jh?la.

THE KINGDOM OF ANAHILAV?DA.

A.D. 720-1300.

THE CH?VAD?S

The history embodied in the preceding chapters is more or less fragmentary, pieced together from coins, stone and copperplate inscriptions, local traditions, and other similar sources. A history based on such materials alone must of necessity be imperfect, leaving blanks which it may be hoped fresh details will gradually fill.

The rise of the Anahilav?da kingdom marks a new period of Gujar?t history regarding which materials are available from formal historical writings. Though this section of Gujar?t history begins with the establishment of Anahilav?da by the Ch?vad?s the details for the earlier portions are very imperfect being written during the time of the Ch?lukya or Solanki successors of the Ch?vad?s. The chief sources of information regarding the earlier period of Ch?vad? rule are the opening chapters of the Prabandhachint?mani, Vich?rasreni, Sukritasank?rtana, and Ratnam?l?.

Before the establishment of Anahilav?da a small Ch?vad? chiefship centred at Pa?ch?sar, now a fair-sized village in Vadhi?r between Gujar?t and Kacch. The existence of a Ch?vad? chiefship at Pa?ch?sar is proved by the Navs?r? grant dated Samvat 490 of the Gujar?t Ch?lukya king Pulikes? Jan?sraya. This grant in recording the triumphant progress of an army of T?jikas or Arabs from Sindh to Navs?r? and mentioning the kingdoms "afflicted" by the Arabs, names the Ch?votakas next after the kings of Kacch and Saur?shtra. These Ch?votakas can be no other than the Ch?vad?s of Pa?ch?sar on the borders of Kacch. The Ch?vad?s of Pa?ch?sar do not appear to have been important rulers. At the most they seem to have held Vadhi?r and part of the north coast of K?thi?v?da. Whatever be the origin of the name Ch?vad?, which was afterwards Sanskritised into the highsounding Ch?potkata or Strongbow, it does not seem to be the name of any great dynasty. The name very closely resembles the Gujar?ti Chor meaning thieves or robbers; and J?vad?, which is a further corruption of Ch?vad?, is the word now in use in those parts for a thief or robber. Except the mention of the Ch?votakas in the Navs?r? copperplate we do not find the Ch?vad?s noticed in any known cotemporary Gujar?t copperplates. For this reason it seems fair to regard them as unimportant rulers over a territory extending from Pa?ch?sar to Anahilav?da.

The author of the Ratnam?l? says that in A.D. 696 Jayasekhara the Ch?vad? king of Pa?ch?sar was attacked by the Chaulukya king Bhuvada of Kaly?nakataka in Kany?kubja or Kanoj and slain by Bhuvada in battle. Before his death Jayasekhara, finding his affairs hopeless, sent his pregnant wife Rupasundar? to the forest in charge of her brother Surap?la, one of his chief warriors. After Jayasekhara's death Rupasundar? gave birth to a son named Vanar?ja who became the illustrious founder of Anahilav?da. It is hard to say how much truth underlies this tradition. In the seventh century not Chaulukya but P?la kings flourished in Kanoj. No place of importance called Kaly?nakataka is recorded in the Kanoj territory. And though there was a southern Ch?lukya kingdom with its capital at Kaly?n, its establishment at Kaly?n was about the middle of the eleventh not in the seventh century. Further the known Dakhan Ch?lukya lists contain no king named Bhuvada, unless he be the great Ch?lukya king Vijay?ditya also called Bhuvan?sraya, who warred in the north and was there imprisoned but made his escape. The inference is that the author of the Ratnam?l?, knowing the Solankis originally belonged to a city called Kaly?n, and knowing that a Ch?lukya king named Bhuvada had defeated the Ch?vad?s may have called Bhuvada king of Kaly?nkataka and identified Kaly?nkataka with a country so well known to Pur?nic fame as Kany?kubja. This view is supported by the absence in the Prabandhachint?mani and other old records of any mention of an invasion from Kanoj. It is possible that in A.D. 696 some king Bhuvada of the Gujar?t Ch?lukyas, of whom at this time branches were ruling as far north as Kaira, invaded the Ch?vad?s under Jayasekhara. Since traces of a Ch?votaka kingdom remain, at least as late as A.D. 720, it seems probable that the destruction of Pa?ch?sar was caused not by Bhuvada in A.D. 696, but in the Arab raid mentioned above whose date falls about A.D. 720. About A.D. 720 may therefore be taken as the date of the birth of Vanar?ja. Merutunga the author of the Prabandhachint?mani tells how Rupasundar? was living in the forest swinging her son in a hammock, when a Jain priest named S?lagunas?ri noticing as he passed royal marks on the boy bought him from his mother. The story adds that a nun named V?ramat? brought up the boy whom the s?dhu called Vanar?ja or the forest king. When eight years old, the priest employed Vanar?ja to protect his place of worship from rats. The boy's skill in shooting rats convinced the priest he was not fit to be a s?dhu but was worthy of a kingdom. He therefore returned the boy to his mother. These details seem invented by the Jains in their own honour. No mention of any such story occurs in the Ratnam?l?.

In the forests where Vanar?ja passed his youth lived his maternal uncle Surap?la, one of Jayasekhara's generals, who, after his sovereign's defeat and death, had become an outlaw. Vanar?ja grew up under Surap?la's charge. The Prabandhachint?mani records the following story of the origin of Vanar?ja's wealth. A Kany?kubja king married Mah?nak? the daughter of a Gujar?t king. To receive the proceeds of the marriage cess which the Gujar?t king had levied from his subjects, a deputation or panchk?la came from Kany?kubja to Gujar?t. The deputation made Vanar?ja their leader or sellabhrit to realize the proceeds of the cess. In six months Vanar?ja collected 24 l?khs of P?ruttha drammas and 4000 horse, which the deputation took and started for Kany?kubja. Vanar?ja waylaid and killed them, secured the money and horses, and remained in hiding for a year. With the wealth thus acquired Vanar?ja enrolled an army and established his power assuming the title of king. He fixed the site of a capital which afterwards rose to be the great city of Anahilapura. The story of the choice of the site is the usual story of a hunted hare turning on the hounds showing the place to be the special nurse of strength and courage. Vanar?ja is said to have asked a Bharv?d or Shepherd named Anahila son of S?khad? to show him the best site. Anahila agreed on condition that the city should be called by his name. Anahila accordingly showed Vanar?ja the place where a hare had attacked and chased a dog. Though much in this tradition is fabulous the city may have been called after some local chief since it was popularly known as Anahilav?da that is the place of Anahila. In the Prabandhachint?mani Merutunga gives A.D. 746 as the date of the installation of Vanar?ja, while in his Vich?rasreni the same author gives A.D. 765 as the date of the foundation of the city. The discrepancy may be explained by taking A.D. 746 to refer to the date of Vanar?ja's getting money enough to fix the site of his capital, and A.D. 765 to refer to the date of his installation in the completed Anahilav?da. Local tradition connects the date A.D. 746 with an image of Ganpati which is said to be as old as the establishment of the city and to bear the date 802. But as the letters of the inscription on the image can be made out by ordinary readers they cannot have been inscribed at nearly so early a date as 802. A.D. 765 , the year given in the Vich?rasreni, seems the more probable date for the installation as the Prabandhachint?mani says that Vanar?ja got himself installed at Anahilapura when he was about fifty. This accords with the date fixed on other grounds. Placing Vanar?ja's birth at about A.D. 720 would make him 44 in A.D. 765 the date at which according to the Vich?rasreni he was formally installed as sovereign of Anahilav?da. Merutunga in both his works gives the length of Vanar?ja's life at 109 and of his reign at sixty years. The figure 60 seems to mark the length of his life and not of his reign. So long a reign as sixty years is barely possible for a sovereign who succeeded late in life, and the 109 years of his life can hardly be correct. Taking Vanar?ja's age at 45 when he was installed in A.D. 765 and allowing fifteen years more to complete the sixty years A.D. 780 would be the closing year of his reign.

The Prabandhachint?mani narrates how generously Vanar?ja rewarded those who had helped him in his adversity. His installation was performed by a woman named Sr? Dev? of K?kara village whom in fulfilment of an early promise Vanar?ja had taken to be his sister. The story regarding the promise is that once when Vanar?ja had gone with his uncle on a thieving expedition to K?kara village and had broken into the house of a merchant he by mistake dipped his hand into a pot of curds. As to touch curds is the same as to dine at a house as a guest, Vanar?ja left the house without taking anything from it. Hearing what had happened the merchant's sister invited Vanar?ja as a brother to dinner and gave him clothes. In return Vanar?ja promised if he ever regained his father's kingdom he should receive his installation as king at her hands. Vanar?ja chose as minister a Bania named J?mba. The story is that while Vanar?ja was looting with two others he came across a merchant J?mba who had five arrows. Seeing only three enemies, J?mba broke and threw away two of the arrows, shouting 'One for each of you.' Vanar?ja admiring his coolness persuaded J?mba to join his band and found him so useful that he promised to make him minister. From the absence of any reference to him in these and similar tales it is probable that his uncle Surap?la died before the installing of Vanar?ja. Vanar?ja is said to have built at Anahilv?da a Jain temple of Pa?ch?sar? P?rasn?th so called because the image was brought from the old settlement of Pa?ch?sar. Mention of this temple continues during the Solanki and V?ghel? times.

The lists of Vanar?ja's successors vary so greatly in the names, in the order of succession, and in the lengths of reigns, that little trust can be placed in them. The first three agree in giving a duration of 196 years to the Ch?vad? dynasty after the accession of Vanar?ja. The accession of the Solanki founder M?lar?ja is given in the Vich?rasreni at Samvat 1017 and in the Prabandhachint?mani at Samvat 998 corresponding with the original difference of nineteen years in the founding of the city. This shows that though the total duration of the dynasty was traditionally known to be 196 years the order of succession was not known and guesses were made as to the duration of the different reigns. Certain dates fixed by inscriptions or otherwise known to some compilers and not known to others caused many discrepancies in the various accounts.

According to the calculations given above Vanar?ja's reign lasted to about A.D. 780. Authorities agree that Vanar?ja was succeeded by his son Yogar?ja. The length of Yogar?ja's reign is given as thirty-five years by the Prabandhachint?mani and the Ratnam?l?, and as twenty-nine by the Vich?rasreni. That is according to the Prabandhachint?mani and Ratnam?l? his reign closes in A.D. 841 and according to the Vich?rasreni in A.D. 836 . On the whole the Prabandhachint?mani date A.D. 841 seems the more probable. The author of the Vich?rasreni may have mistaken the 7 of the manuscripts for a 1, the two figures in the manuscripts of that date being closely alike. If A.D. 780 is taken as the close of Vanar?ja's reign and A.D. 806 as the beginning of Yogar?ja's reign an interval of twenty-six years is left. This blank, which perhaps accounts for the improbably long reign and life assigned to Vanar?ja, may have been filled by the forgotten reign of a childless elder brother of Yogar?ja.

Of Yogar?ja the Prabandhachint?mani tells the following tale. Kshemar?ja one of Yogar?ja's three sons reported that several ships were storm-stayed at Prabh?sa or Soman?tha. The ships had 10,000 horses, many elephants, and millions of money and treasure. Kshemar?ja prayed that he might seize the treasure. Yogar?ja forbad him. In spite of their father's orders the sons seized the treasure and brought it to the king. Yogar?ja said nothing. And when the people asked him why he was silent he answered: To say I approve would be a sin; to say I do not approve would annoy you. Hitherto on account of an ancestor's misdeeds we have been laughed at as a nation of thieves. Our name was improving and we were rising to the rank of true kings. This act of my sons has renewed the old stain. Yogar?ja would not be comforted and mounted the funeral pyre.

According to the Prabandhachint?mani in A.D. 841 Yogar?ja was succeeded by his son Kshemar?ja. The Vich?rasreni says that Yogar?ja was succeeded by Ratn?ditya who reigned three years, and he by Vairisimha who reigned eleven years. Then came Kshemar?ja who is mentioned as the son of Yogar?ja and as coming to the throne in A.D. 849 . The relationship of Yogar?ja to Ratn?ditya and Vairisimha is not given. Probably both were sons of Yogar?ja as the Prabandhachint?mani mentions that Yogar?ja had three sons. The duration of Kshemar?ja's reign is given as thirty-nine years. It is probable that the reigns of the three brothers lasted altogether for thirty-nine years, fourteen years for the two elder brothers and twenty-five years for Kshemar?ja the period mentioned by the Prabandhachint?mani. Accepting this chronology A.D. 880 will be the date of the close of Kshemar?ja's reign.

According to the Vich?rasreni and the Sukritasank?rtana Kshemar?ja was succeeded by his son Ch?munda. Instead of Ch?munda the Prabandhachint?mani mentions Bh?yada perhaps another name of Ch?munda, as in the Prabandhachint?mani the name Ch?munda does not occur. The Prabandhachint?mani notes that Bh?yada reigned twenty-nine years and built in Anahilav?da Patan the temple of Bh?yadeshvar. The Vich?rasreni gives twenty-seven years as the length of Ch?munda's reign an insignificant difference of two years. This gives A.D. 908 as the close of Ch?munda's reign according to the Vich?rasreni.

After Bh?yada the Prabandhachint?mani places Vairisimha and Ratn?ditya assigning twenty-five and fifteen years as the reigns of each. The Vich?rasreni mentions as the successor of Ch?munda his son Ghaghada who is called R?hada in the Sukritasank?rtana. Instead of Ghaghada the Prabandhachint?mani gives S?mantasimha or Lion Chieftain perhaps a title of Gh?ghada's. The Vich?rasreni gives Ghaghada a reign of twenty-seven years and mentions as his successor an unnamed son who reigned nineteen years. The Sukritasank?rtana gives the name of this son as Bh?bhata. According to these calculations the close of Gh?ghada's reign would be A.D. 936 . Adding nineteen years for Bh?bhata's reign brings the date of the end of the dynasty to A.D. 956 that is five years earlier than S. 1017 the date given by the Vich?rasreni. Until some evidence to the contrary is shown Merutunga's date A.D. 961 may be taken as correct.

According to the above the Ch?vad? genealogy stands as follows:

THE CHAULUKYAS OR SOLANKIS

The next rulers are the Chaulukyas or Solankis whose conversion to Jainism has secured them careful record by Jain chroniclers. The earliest writer on the Solankis, the learned Jain priest Hemachandra , in his work called the Dvy?sraya, has given a fairly full and correct account of the dynasty up to Siddhar?ja . 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 Abhayatilakagani in A.D. 1255. The last chapter which is in Prakrit deals solely with king Kum?rap?la. 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 Vich?rasreni which its author has taken pains to make the chief authority in dates. The Vich?rasreni was written by Merutunga about A.D. 1314, some time after he wrote the Prabandhachint?mani.

According to the Vich?rasreni after the Ch?vad?s, in A.D. 961 , began the reign of M?lar?ja the son of a daughter of the last Ch?vad? ruler. The name Chaulukya is a Sanskritised form, through an earlier form Ch?lukya, of the old names Chalkya, Chalikya, Chir?kya, Ch?lukya of the great Dakhan dynasty , made to harmonise with the Pur?nic-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 Bilhana and by the Anahilav?da chroniclers. In Gujar?t the popular form of the word seems to have been Solaki or Solanki , a name till lately used by Gujar?t bards. The sameness of name seems to show the Dakhan and Gujar?t 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 Gujar?t. The balance of probability is, as Dr. B?hler holds, that M?lar?ja's ancestors came from the north.

The Sukritasank?rtana says that the last Ch?vad? king Bh?bhata was succeeded by his sister's son M?lar?ja. Of the family or country of M?lar?ja's father no details are given. The Prabandhachint?mani calls M?lar?ja the sister's son of S?mantasimha and gives the following details. In A.D. 930 of the family of Bhuiyada were three brothers R?ji, Bija, and Dandaka, who stopped at Anahilav?da on their way back from a pilgrimage to Soman?tha in the guise of K?rpatika or K?pdi beggars. The three brothers attended a cavalry parade held by king S?mantasimha. An objection taken by R?ji to some of the cavalry movements pleased S?mantasimha, who, taking him to be the scion of some noble family, gave him his sister L?l?dev? in marriage. L?l?dev? died pregnant and the child, which was taken alive from its dead mother's womb was called M?lar?ja, because the operation was performed when the M?la constellation was in power. M?lar?ja grew into an able and popular prince and helped to extend the kingdom of his maternal uncle. In a fit of intoxication S?mantasimha ordered M?lar?ja to be placed on the throne. He afterwards cancelled the grant. But M?lar?ja 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 . The main facts of this tale, that M?lar?ja's father was one R?ji of the Ch?lukya family, that his mother was a Ch?vad?. princess, and that he came to the Ch?vad? throne by killing his maternal uncle, appear to be true. That M?lar?ja's father's name was R?ji is proved by Dr. B?hler's copperplate of M?lar?ja. Merutunga's details that R?ji came in disguise to Anahilav?da, took the fancy of S?mantasimha, and received his sister in marriage seem fictions in the style common in the bardic praises of R?jput princes. Dr. B?hler's copperplate further disproves the story as it calls M?lar?ja the son of the illustrious R?ji, the great king of kings Mah?r?j?dhir?ja, a title which would not be given to a wandering prince. R?ji appears to have been of almost equal rank with the Ch?vad?s. The Ratnam?l? calls R?ji fifth in descent from Bhuvada, his four predecessors being Karn?ditya, Ch?ndr?ditya, Som?ditya, and Bhuvan?ditya. But the Ratnam?l? 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 M?lar?ja.

Most Jain chroniclers begin the history of Anahilav?da with M?lar?ja who with the Jains is the glory of the dynasty. After taking the small Ch?vad? kingdom M?lar?ja spread his power in all directions, overrunning K?thi?v?da and Kacch on the west, and fighting B?rappa of L?ta or South Gujar?t on the south, and Vigrahar?ja king of Ajmir on the north. The Ajmir kings were called Sap?dalaksha. Why they were so called is not known. This much is certain that Sap?dalaksha is the Sanskrit form of the modern Sew?lik. It would seem that the Choh?ns, whom the Gujar?t Jain chroniclers call Sap?dalaksh?ya, must have come to Gujar?t from the Sew?lik hills. After leaving the Sew?lik hills the capital was at Ajmir, which is usually said to have been first fortified by the Choh?n king Ajayap?la . This story seems invented by the Choh?ns. 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 Hamm?ramah?k?vya begins the Choh?n genealogy with V?sudeva and states that V?sudeva's fourth successor Ajayap?la established the hill fort of Ajmir. About this time the Choh?ns seem to have made settlements in the Ajmir country and to have harassed Gujar?t. Vigrahar?ja the tenth in succession from V?sudeva is described as killing M?lar?ja and weakening the Gurjjara country. The author of the Prabandhachint?mani gives the following details. The Sap?dalaksha or Ajmir king entered Gujar?t to attack M?lar?ja and at the same time from the south M?lar?ja's territory was invaded by B?rappa a general of king Tailapa of Teling?na. Unable to face both enemies M?lar?ja at his minister's advice retired to Kanth?durga apparently Kanthkot in Cutch. He remained there till the Navar?tra or Nine-Night festival at the close of the rains when he expected the Sap?dalaksha king would have to return to Ajmir to worship the goddess S?kambhar? when B?rappa would be left alone. At the close of the rains the Sap?dalaksha king fixed his camp near a place called S?kambhar? and bringing the goddess S?kambhar? there held the Nine-Night festival. This device disappointed M?lar?ja. He sent for his s?mantas or nobles and gave them presents. He told them his plans and called on them to support him in attacking the Sap?dalaksha king. M?lar?ja 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 M?lar?ja waits at his door.' While the attendant was on his way to give the message, M?lar?ja pushed him on one side and himself went into the presence. The doorkeeper called 'Here comes M?lar?ja.' Before he could be stopped M?lar?ja forced his way in and took his seat on the throne. The Ajmir king in consternation asked 'Are you M?lar?ja?' M?lar?ja 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, B?rappa 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.' M?lar?ja replied 'Say not so.' He refused the R?ja's invitation to dine, and leaving sword in hand mounted his elephant and with his nobles attacked the camp of B?rappa. B?rappa was killed and eighteen of his elephants and 10,000 of his horses fell into M?lar?ja's hands. While returning with the spoil M?lar?ja received news that the Sap?dalaksha king had fled.

This story of the author of the Prabandhachint?mani differs from that given by the author of the Hamm?rak?vya who describes M?lar?ja as defeated and slain. The truth seems to be that the Ajm?r king defeated M?lar?ja and on M?lar?ja's submission did not press his advantage. In these circumstances M?lar?ja's victory over B?rappa seems improbable. The Dvy?sraya devotes seventy-five verses of its sixth chapter to the contest between B?rappa and M?lar?ja. The details may be thus summarised. Once when M?lar?ja received presents from various Indian kings Dv?rappa king of L?tadesa sent an ill-omened elephant. The marks being examined by royal officers and by prince Ch?munda, they decided the elephant would bring destruction on the king who kept him. The elephant was sent back in disgrace and M?lar?ja and his son started with an army to attack L?tadesa and avenge the insult. In his march M?lar?ja first came to the Svabhravat? or S?barmat? which formed the boundary of his kingdom, frightening the people. From the S?barmat? he advanced to the ancient Pur? where also the people became confused. The L?ta king prepared for fight, and was slain by Ch?munda in single combat. M?lar?ja advanced to Broach where B?rappa who was assisted by the island kings opposed him. Ch?munda overcame them and slew B?rappa. After this success M?lar?ja and Ch?munda returned to Anahilapura.

The Dvy?sraya styles B?rappa king of L?tadesa; the Prabandhachint?mani calls him a general of Tailapa king of Teling?na; the Sukritasank?rtana a general of the Kany?kubja king; and the K?rtikaumud? a general of the Lord of L?ta.

Other evidence proves that at the time of M?lar?ja a Chaulukya king named B?rappa did reign in L?tadesa. The Surat grant of K?rtir?ja grandson of B?rappa is dated A.D. 1018 . This, taking twenty years to a king, brings B?rappa's date to A.D. 978 , a year which falls in the reign of M?lar?ja . The statement in the Prabandhachint?mani that B?rappa was a general of Tailapa seems correct. The southern form of the name B?rappa supports the statement. And as Tailapa overthrew the R?shtrak?tas in A.D. 972 he might well place a general in military charge of L?ta, and allow him practical independence. This would explain why the Dvy?sraya calls B?rappa king of L?tadesa and why the K?rtikaumud? calls him general of the Lord of L?ta.

One of M?lar?ja's earliest wars was with Graharipu the ?bh?ra or Ch?d?sam? ruler of Sorath. According to M?lar?ja's bards, the cause of war was Graharipu's oppression of pilgrims to Prabh?sa. Graharipu's capital was V?manasthal?, the modern Vanthal? nine miles west of Jun?gadh, and the fort of Durgapalli which Graharipu is said to have established must be Jun?gadh 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 L?kh? son of king Phula of Kacch and to have been helped by Turks and other Mlechhas. When M?lar?ja reached the Jambum?li river, he was met by Graharipu and his army. With Graharipu was L?kh? of Kacch, the king of Sindh probably a Sumr?, Mew?s Bhilas, and the sons of Graharipu's wife N?l? who had been summoned from near the Bhadar river by a message in the Yavana language. With M?lar?ja were the kings of Sil?prastha, of M?rw?r, of K?s?, of Arbuda or Abu, and of Sr?m?la or Bh?nm?l. M?lar?ja had also his own younger brother Gang?mah, his friend king Revat?mitra, and Bhils. It is specially mentioned that in this expedition M?lar?ja received no help from the sons of his paternal uncles B?ja and Dandaka. The fight ended in Graharipu being made prisoner by M?lar?ja, and in L?kh? being slain with a spear. After the victory M?lar?ja went to Prabh?sa, worshipped the linga, and returned to Anahilav?da with his army and 108 elephants.

According to the author of the Prabandhachint?mani L?kh? met his death in a different contest with M?lar?ja. L?kh? who is described as the son of Phulad?, and K?malat? daughter of K?rttir?ja a Parm?r king, is said to have been invincible because he was under the protection of king Yasovarman of M?lwa. He defeated M?lar?ja's army eleven times. In a twelfth encounter M?lar?ja besieged L?kh? in Kapilakot, slew him in single combat, and trod on his flowing beard. Enraged at this insult to her dead son L?kh?'s mother called down on M?lar?ja's descendants the curse of the spider poison that is of leprosy.

Mr. Forbes, apparently from bardic sources, states that on his wife's death R?ji the father of M?lar?ja went to the temple of Vishnu at Dw?rk?. On his return he visited the court of L?kh? Phul?ni and espoused L?kh?'s sister R?y?ji by whom he had a son named R?kh?ich. This marriage proved the ruin of R?ji. In a dispute about precedence L?kh? slew R?ji and many of his R?jput followers, his wife R?y?ji becoming a Sat?. B?ja the uncle of M?lar?ja urged his nephew to avenge his father's death and M?lar?ja was further incited against L?kh? because L?kh? harboured R?kh?ich the younger son of R?ji at his court as a rival to M?lar?ja.

According to the Dvy?sraya, either from the rising power of his son or from repentance for his own rough acts, after Ch?munda's victory over B?rappa M?lar?ja installed him as ruler and devoted himself to religion and charity. According to the Prabandhachint?mani M?lar?ja built in Anahilav?da a Jain temple named M?lavasatik?. But as the Nandi symbol on his copperplate shows that M?lar?ja was a devoted Saivite, it is possible that this temple was built by some Jain guild or community and named after the reigning chief. M?lar?ja built a Mah?deva temple called M?lasv?mi in Anahilav?da, and, in honour of Soman?tha, he built the temple of Mulesvara at Mandali-nagara where he went at the bidding of the god. He also built at Anahilav?da a temple of Mah?deva called Tripurushapr?s?da on a site to which the tradition attaches that seeing M?lar?ja daily visiting the temple of M?lan?thadeva at Mandali, Soman?tha Mah?deva being greatly pleased promised to bring the ocean to Anahilav?da. Soman?tha came, and the ocean accompanying the god certain ponds became brackish. In honour of these salt pools M?lar?ja built the Tripurushapr?s?da. Looking for some one to place in charge of this temple, M?lar?ja heard of an ascetic named Kanthadi at Siddhapura on the banks of the Sarasvat? who used to fast every other day and on the intervening day lived on five morsels of food. M?lar?ja 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. M?lar?ja passed most of his days at the holy shrine of Siddhapura, the modern Sidhpur on the Sarasvat? about fifteen miles north-east of Anahilav?da. At Sidhpur M?lar?ja made many grants to Br?hmans. Several branches of Gujar?t Br?hmans, Aud?chyas Sr?gaudas and Kanojias, trace their origin in Gujar?t to an invitation from M?lar?ja to Siddhapura and the local Pur?nas and M?h?tmyas confirm the story. As the term Aud?chya means Northerner M?lar?ja may have invited Br?hmans from some such holy place as Kurukshetra which the Aud?chyas claim as their home. From Kany?kubja in the Madhyadesa between the Ganges and the Yamun? another equally holy place the Kanoj?as may have been invited. The Sr? Gaudas appear to have come from Bengal and Tirhut. Gauda and Tirhut Br?hmans are noted T?ntriks and Mantras?stris a branch of learning for which both the people and the rulers of Gujar?t have a great fondness. Grants of villages were made to these Br?hmans. Sidhpur was given to the Aud?chyas, Simhapura or Sihor in K?thi?v?da to some other colony, and Stambhat?rtha or Cambay to the Sr? Gaudas. At Siddhapura M?lar?ja built the famous temple called the Rudramah?laya or the great shrine of Rudra. According to tradition M?lar?ja did not complete the Rudramah?laya and Siddhar?ja finished it. In spite of this tradition it does not appear that M?lar?ja died leaving the great temple unfinished as a copperplate of A.D. 987 records that M?lar?ja made the grant after worshipping the god of the Rudramah?laya on the occasion of a solar eclipse on the fifteenth of the dark half of M?gha. It would seem therefore that M?lar?ja built one large Rudramah?laya which Siddhar?ja may have repaired or enlarged. M?lar?ja 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 Vich?rasreni gives the length of M?lar?ja's reign at thirty-five years A.D. 961-996 ; the Prabandhachint?mani begins the reign at A.D. 942 and ends it at A.D. 997 that is a length of fifty-five years. Of the two, thirty-five years seems the more probable, as, if the traditional accounts are correct, M?lar?ja can scarcely have been a young man when he overthrew his uncle's power.

Of M?lar?ja's son and successor Ch?munda no historical information is available. The author of the Prabandhachint?mani assigns him a reign of thirteen years. The author of the Dvy?sraya says that he had three sons Vallabha R?ja, Durlabha R?ja, and N?ga R?ja. According to one account Ch?munda installed Vallabha in A.D. 1010 and went on pilgrimage to Benares. On his passage through M?lwa Mu?ja the M?lwa king carried off Ch?munda's umbrella and other marks of royalty. Ch?munda 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 M?lwa. Vallabha started with an army but died of small-pox. The author of the Prabandhachint?mani gives Ch?munda a reign of six months, while the author of the Vich?rasreni entirely drops his name and gives a reign of fourteen years to Vallabha made up of the thirteen years of Ch?munda 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 Vich?rasreni and the Prabandhachint?mani agree in ending Vallabha's reign in A.D. 1010 . The author of the Dvy?sraya states that Ch?munda greatly lamenting the death of Vallabha installed Vallabha's younger brother Durlabha, and himself retired to die at Suklat?rtha on the Narbad?.

Durlabha whom the Sukritasank?rtana also calls Jagatjhampaka or World Guardian came to the throne in A.D. 1010 . The Prabandhachint?mani gives the length of his reign at eleven years and six months while the Vich?rasreni makes it twelve years closing it in A.D. 1022 . The author of the Dvy?sraya says that along with his brother N?ga R?ja, Durlabha attended the Svayamvara or bridegroom-choosing of Durlabha Dev? the sister of Mahendra the R?ja of Nadol in M?rw?r. The kings of Anga, K?s?, Avant?, Ched?, Kuru, H?na, Mathur?, Vindhya, and Andhra were also present. The princess chose Durlabha and Mahendra gave his younger sister Lakshm? to Durlabha's brother N?ga R?ja. 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 Anahilav?da where Durlabha built a lake called Durlabhasarovara. The author of the Prabandhachint?mani says that Durlabha gave up the kingdom to his son Bh?ma. He also states that Durlabha went on pilgrimage and was insulted on the way by Mu?ja king of M?lwa. This seems the same tale which the Dvy?sraya tells of Ch?munda. Since Mu?ja cannot have been a cotemporary of Durlabha the Dvy?sraya's account seems correct.

Durlabha was succeeded by his nephew Bh?ma the son of Durlabha's younger brother N?ga R?ja. The author of the Dvy?sraya says that Durlabha wishing to retire from the world offered the kingdom to his nephew Bh?ma; that Bh?ma declined in favour of his father N?ga R?ja; that N?ga R?ja refused; that Durlabha and N?ga R?ja persuaded Bh?ma to take the government; and that after installing Bh?ma the two brothers died together. Such a voluntary double death sounds unlikely unless the result was due to the machinations of Bh?ma. The Prabandhachint?mani gives Bh?ma a reign of fifty-two years from A.D. 1022 to 1074 , while the Vich?rasreni reduces his reign to forty-two years placing its close in A.D. 1064 . Forty-two years would seem to be correct as another copy of the Prabandhachint?mani has 42.

Two copperplates of Bh?ma are available one dated A.D. 1030 eight or nine years after he came to the throne, the other from Kacch in A.D. 1037 .

Bh?ma seems to have been more powerful than either of his predecessors. According to the Dvy?sraya his two chief enemies were the kings of Sindh and of Ched? or Bundelkhand. He led a victorious expedition against Hammuka the king of Sindh, who had conquered the king of Sivas?na and another against Karna king of Ched? who paid tribute and submitted. The Prabandhachint?mani has a verse, apparently an old verse interpolated, which says that on the M?lwa king Bhoja's death, while sacking Dh?r?puri, Karna took Bh?ma as his coadjutor, and that afterwards Bh?ma's general D?mara took Karna captive and won from him a gold mandapik? or canopy and images of Ganesa and N?lakanthesvara Mah?deva. Bh?ma is said to have presented the canopy to Soman?tha.

When Bh?ma was engaged against the king of Sindh, Kulachandra the general of the M?lwa king Bhoja with all the M?lwa feudatories, invaded Anahilav?da, sacked the city, and sowed shell-money at the gate where the time-marking gong was sounded. So great was the loss that the 'sacking of Kulachandra' has passed into a proverb. Kulachandra also took from Anahilav?da 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. He said the shell-money is an omen that the wealth of M?lwa will flow to Gujar?t. An unpublished inscription of Bhoja's successor Uday?ditya in a temple at Udepur near Bhils? confirms the above stating that Bh?ma was conquered by Bhoja's officers.

The Solanki kings of Anahilapura being Saivites held the god Soman?tha of Prabh?sa in great veneration. The very ancient and holy shrine of Prabh?sa has long been a place of special pilgrimage. As early as the Y?davas of Dw?rk?, pilgrimages to Prabh?sa are recorded but the Mah?bh?rata makes no mention either of Soman?tha or of any other Saivite shrine. The shrine of Soman?tha was probably not established before the time of the Valabhis . As the Valabhi kings were most open-handed in religious gifts, it was probably through their grants that the Soman?tha temple rose to importance. The Solankis were not behind the Valabhis in devotion to Soman?tha. To save pilgrims from oppression M?lar?ja fought Graharipu the ?bh?ra king of Sorath. M?lar?ja afterwards went to Prabh?sa and also built temples in Gujar?t in honour of the god Soman?tha. As M?lar?ja's successors Ch?munda and Durlabha continued firm devotees of Soman?tha during their reigns the wealth of the temple must have greatly increased.

No Gujar?t Hindu writer refers to the destruction of the great temple soon after Bh?ma's accession. But the Musalm?n historians place beyond doubt that in A.D. 1024 the famous tenth raid of Mahm?d of Ghazni, ended in the destruction and plunder of Soman?tha.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet