No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Colonel James Tod has stated in his Annals of Rājasthāna that in V.S. 526 (A.D. 470) Rāṭhōra Nayapāla acquired the kingdom of Kanauj after killing king Ajayapāla. This assertion does not seem to be correct, for, though the Rāshṭrakūṭas had had their sway over Kanauj ere this, yet about this particular period king Skandagupta or his son Kumāragupta of the Imperial Gupta dynasty ruled over Kanauj. After this the Maukharīs occupied it, and their power was set aside, for some time, by the Baisas, who took possession of Kanauj. But after the death of Harsha the Maukharīs again made it their capital. About V.S. 798 (A.D. 741) king Lalitāditya (Muktāpīḍa) of Kāshmīr had invaded Kanauj, then, too, it was the capital of Yashōvarman, the Maukhari ruler. Further it appears from the copper grant of V.S. 1084 (A.D. 1027) of Pratihāra king Trilōchanapāla and from the inscription of V.S. 1093 (A.D. 1036) of Yashahpāla that the Pratihāras ruled over Kanauj about that time.
page 1 note 1 Annals and Antiquities of Rājasthān (ed. by Crooke, W.), p. 930Google Scholar.
page 1 note 2 Bhārata-kē-Prāchīna Rajavamsha, pt. ii, pp. 285–97.
page 1 note 3 Bhārata-kē-Prāchīna Rajavamsha, pt. ii, p. 373.
page 1 note 4 Bhārata-kē-Prāchīna Rajavamsha, pt. ii, p. 338.
page 1 note 5 Bhārata-kē-Prāchīna Rajavamsha, pt. ii, p. 376.
page 1 note 6 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 34.
page 1 note 7 Asiatic Researches, vol. ix, p. 432.
page 2 note 1 Journal Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, January, 1930, pp. 115–19.
page 2 note 2 The kingdom of Rāshṭrakūṭa Dhruvarāja of the Deccan had extended in the north up to Ayōdhyā between v.s. 842 and 850; later, in the time of Krishṇarāja II between v.s. 932 and 971, its frontier had reached near the bank of the Ganges. Further, between v.s. 997 and 1023, in Krishṇa III's time, it had extended even beyond the Ganges. Probably at this time a member of this dynasty or some survivor of the early Rāshṭrakūṭa rulers of Kanauj might have received a “Jāgīr” here, in whose family king Chandra, the conqueror of Kanauj, was born.
page 2 note 3 Journal Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, January, 1930, pp. 111–21.
page 2 note 4 Smith's, V. A.Early History of India, p. 384Google Scholar.
page 3 note 1 In the copper grant of v.s. 1150 there is a mention of Pratihāra Dēvapāla of Kanauj:—
“
”
An inscription of Dēvapāla dated v.s. 1005 (a.d. 948) has been found (Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 177).
page 3 note 2 Epigraphia Indica, vol. ix, p. 302; and vol. xiv, pp. 192–209.
page 3 note 3 
i.e. being oppressed by the anarchy prevailing after the deaths of Rājās Bhōja and Karṇa the earth sought refuge with Chandradēva.
King Bhōja mentioned here is supposed by some historians to be the Pratihāra Bhōja.
page 3 note 4 Bhārat-kē-Prāchīna Rājavamsha, vol. i, p. 50.
page 3 note 5 Some historians assign v.s. 1135 (a.d. 1078) to Chandradēva's conquest of Kanauj.
page 3 note 6 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 11.
page 4 note 1 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 11.
page 4 note 2 Indian Antiquary, vol. xiv, p. 103.
page 4 note 3 Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii, p. 359.
page 4 note 4 She was also called Rālhaṇadēvī.
page 4 note 5 Journal Royal Asiatic Society, 1896, p. 787.
page 4 note 6 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 15.
page 5 note 1 Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, vol. i, p. 260.
page 5 note 2 Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, vol. i, p. 260, pl. xxvi, No. 17.
page 5 note 3 It shows that Gōvindachandra had defeated the “Gaura” and that the “Hammīrs” (Mohammedans) were also awe-struck by his bravery.
page 5 note 4 List of Northern (Indian) Inscriptions, No. 692; and Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 102. This was issued from Benāres.
page 5 note 5 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 104.
page 6 note 1 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 105.
page 6 note 2 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 19.
page 6 note 3 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 106.
page 6 note 4 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 108.
page 6 note 5 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 109.
page 6 note 6 Journal Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. xxxi, p. 123.
page 6 note 7 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 110.
page 6 note 8 Journal Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. lvi, p. 108. Mr. Bhandarkar gives the date as v.s. 1187.
page 6 note 9 Journal Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. lvi, p. 114.
page 6 note 10 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 100.
page 6 note 11 Journal Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. xxvii, p. 242.
page 6 note 12 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 111.
page 6 note 13 Journal Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. lvi, p. 119.
page 6 note 14 Lucknow Museum Report of 1914–15, pp. 4–10.
page 6 note 15 Indian Antiquary, vol. xix, p. 249.
page 7 note 1 Epigraphia Indica, vol. v, p. 114.
page 7 note 2 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 112.
page 7 note 3 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 131.
page 7 note 4 Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii, p. 361.
page 7 note 5 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 114.
page 7 note 6 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 113.
page 7 note 7 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 21.
page 7 note 8 He was born of Nayanakēlidēvī and might have predeceased father.
page 7 note 9 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 115.
page 7 note 10 Epigraphia Indica, vol. v, p. 115.
page 7 note 11 Epigraphia Indica, vol. vii, p. 99.
page 7 note 12 Archœological Survey of India, vol. i, p. 96.
page 7 note 13 Kielhorn's list of inscription of N.I., p. 19, No. 131.
page 7 note 14 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 116.
page 10 note 1 Epigraphia Indica. vol. ix, pp. 319–28.
page 10 note 2 This Kumāradēvi wag a follower of Buddhism. In a manuscript copy of the book entitled “Ashtasarika” preserved in the Nēpāl State Library it is thus stated:—
This shows that Gōvindachandra's second queen Vasantadēvī, too, was a follower of the Mahāyāna branch of Buddhism. Some people hold Vasantadēvī to be another name of Kumāradēvī. In the “Rāmacharita”, written by Sandhyākaranandī, king Mahaṇa (Mathana) father of Kumāradēvī's mother is stated to be of the Rāshṭrakūṭa dynasty.
page 10 note 3 Of the twenty-one copper grants, found near Benāres, fourteen belong to this king Gōvindachandra.
page 10 note 4 Perhaps these were the Turks that were then attempting advances from the Lahore side.
page 11 note 1 Early History of India (4th edition), p. 400.
page 11 note 2 Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, vol. i, pp. 260–1, pi. xxvi, No. 18.
page 11 note 3 Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, vol. i, p. 261.
page 12 note 1 Rambhāmanjarī Nātikā, p. 6.
page 12 note 2 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 118.
page 12 note 3 
This shows that he might have fought with Khusrō of Ghaznī, who, at that time, had settled at Lahore.
page 12 note 4 Indian Antiquary, vol. xv, p. 7.
page 12 note 5 Archœological Survey of India, vol. xi, p. 125.
page 12 note 6 Journal American Oriental Society, vol. vi, p. 548.
page 12 note 7 The ruins of these temples are still existent in Jaunpur.
page 12 note 8 Bhārat-kē-Prāchīna Rājavamsha, vol. i, p. 244.
page 13 note 1 
page 13 note 2 p. 4.
page 13 note 3 His last grant is of v.s. 1219 (a.d. 1163) and that of his successor Paramardidēva of v.s. 1223 (a.d. 1167). This shows that the victory mentioned above was gained by Jayachchandra while he was a prince regent.
page 14 note 1 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 121.
page 14 note 2 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 122.
page 14 note 3 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 124.
page 14 note 4 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 125.
page 14 note 5 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 127.
page 14 note 6 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 130.
page 14 note 7 Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 129.
page 14 note 8 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 135.
page 14 note 9 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 137.
page 14 note 10 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 138.
page 14 note 11 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 140.
page 15 note 1 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 141.
page 15 note 2 Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 142.
page 15 note 3 Indian Antiquary, vol. xv, p. 10.
page 15 note 4 Annual Report of the Archœological Survey of India, (a.d. 1921–2), pp. 120–1.
page 15 note 5 Proceedings of the Bengal Asiatic Society (1880), p. 77.
page 15 note 6 
i.e., who has earned the title of “Pangu” (lame) being unable to mobilize his immense armies without the support of two sticks—Gangā and Yamunā. It is also evident from the above reference that the title of Jayachchandra's father was Malladēva and the name of his mother was Chandralēkhā.
page 17 note 1 Indian Antiquary, vol. lix (01 1930), pp. 6–9Google Scholar.
page 17 note 2 Tabqāte-Nāsirī, p. 140.
page 17 note 3 Kāmiluttavārīkh (Elliot's, translation), vol. ii, p. 251Google Scholar.
page 17 note 4 In the Persian chronicle, Tājul-Ma-āsir, written by Hasan Nizāmī, this event is thus described:—
After taking possession of Delhi next year Qutubuddīn Aibak invaded Kanauj. On the way Sultān Shahābuddīn also joined him. The invading army consisted of 50,000 horse. The Sultān had posted Qutbuddīn in the vanguard. Jayachandra met this army at Chandāval near Etawah. At the time of the battle king Jayachandra, seated on an elephant, guided his forces, but was eventually killed. The Sultān's army then plundered the treasure of the fort of Āsnī and, having proceeded further, similarly took Benāres. He also got 300 elephants in this plunder.
Maulānā Minhājuddīn in his Tabqāt-i-Nāsirī says that the two generals Qutbuddīn and lzzuddīn accompanied the Sultān (Shihābuddīn) and defeated king Jayachandra of Benāres near Chandāval in a.h. 590 (v.s. 1250).
page 17 note 5 This place is in the Allahabad district on the bank of the Ganges. It is alleged that the remains of Jayachchandra's fort on one bank of the river and those of his brother Māṇikachandra's fort on the opposite bank are still existent. The peculiar burial ground of the place also tells the taleof a battle being fought there, in which the victorious Jayachchandra had destroyed a very large number of his Muslim foes.
page 18 note 1 Mērutunga, too, in his Prabandhachintāmāṇī discredits Suhavādēvī for calling the Mohmmedans. This book was written in v.s. 1362 (a.d. 1305).
page 19 note 1 Tabqātenāsirī, p. 179.
page 19 note 2 In the time of this Īltutmish a Kshatriya hero named Bartū destroyed a number of Mohammedans in Oudh. (Tabqātenāsirī (English translation), pp. 628–9.)
page 19 note 3 The first of these two was found at the village of Kamaulī, in Benāres district (Epigraphia Indica, vol. iv, p. 127)Google Scholar; and the second at the village of Sihvar (also in the same district)(Indian Antiquary, vol. xviii, p. 130).
page 19 note 4 Epigraphia Indica, vol. x, p. 95.
In this copper plate the Samvat is stated both in figures and words. The first digit of the figure appears to have been made by erasing some other figure. MrBanerji, R. D. reads it as 1257 (Journal Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. vii, p. 762, No. 11)Google Scholar. If this version be taken as correct then this grant should have been written three years after giving the village of Pamahī.
page 20 note 1 From the history of Rāmpur we learn that when Shamsuddīn had invaded Khōr, Jajapāla acknowledged his supremacy and remained there, but his brother Prahasta (Baradāīsēna) fled to Mahuī (in the Farrukhābād dist.), while some of their relatives excaped to Nēpāl. After a time the descendants of Jajapāla leaving Khōr settled in Usēṭ (in the Badāūn dist.). Probably Lakhanapala, too, at that time lived there in the capacity of a feudatory. Afterwards being chased by the Mohmmedans there, they went towards Bilsad. Later Rāma Rāi (Rāmasahāya), a descendant of Jajapāla, found the state of Rāmpur in the Etah district. The Rāo of Khimsēpur in the Farrukabad district also claims his descent from Jajapāla. Similarly the Chaudharis of Surjaī and Sarōḍhā (Mainpuri dist.) are known as the descendants of Jajapāla.
It is said that Māṇikachandra was a brother of Jayachchandra. The rulers of Māndā and Bījāpur, states in the Mirzāpur district, as well as some other petty landholders of Ghāzīpur district, claim their descent from Gāḍana, the son of Māṇikachandra.
page 20 note 2 In v.s. 1270 Shamsuddīn converted the name of Khōr as Shamsābād after his own name.
page 20 note * In the Pratāpgurha Nāmā, published in a.d. 1849, this prince is mentioned as Harasū. Perhaps Harasū and Prahasta are corrupted forms of Harishchandra.
page 20 note † Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 64.
page 20 note ‡ At some places the time of this event is given as v.s. 1280.
page 21 note 1 Possibly Baradāīsēna may be a younger brother of Harishchandra.
page 21 note 2 In the history of Rāmpur Sīhā is stated as the grandson of Prahasta, but in the history of Mārwār his grandfather's name is stated as Baradāīsēna. It is, therefore, probable that both these are surnames of Harishchandra. It is also possible that just as “Dalapangula” was a title of Jayachchandra “Baradāīsēna” (Varadāyīsainya) might be that of Harishchandra.
page 21 note 3 Its ruins are still existent on the bank of the Ganges and are locally known as “Sīhā Rāo-kā-Khēḍā”.
page 21 note 4 It is stated in Ain-i-Akbari that Sīhā was the nephew of Jaychand, who lived at Shamsābād and was also killed in the battle fought with Shahābuddīn at Kanauj (vol. ii, p. 507).
In the Annals and Antiquities of Rājasthāna at one place Sīhā is stated as the son of Jayaohandra (vol. i, p. 105) while at other as the nephew (vol. ii, p. 930). But at the third place he and Sētarāma both are stated to be the grandsons of Jayachandra (vol. ii, p. 940).
In the inscription of Sīhā dated v.s. 1330 he is stated as the son of Sētarāma.
But if we take Sētarāma to be the elder brother and adoptive father of Sīhā, firstly the times assigned to Jayachandra and Sīhā adjust themselves well, secondly the controversies arising by the mention of Sētarāma at one place as the brother and at others as the father of Sīhā would also be squared up.