A r t ic l e No. 9.
The Predecessors of the Gahadavalas of Kanauj.
By N. B. Sanyai., M.A., Rajsftahi.
The rule of the Imperial Pratiharas terminated about the year 1020 A.D. and the Gahadavalas under Chandradeva rose into prominence about the close of the eleventh century A.D. Ag more than half a century intervenes between these two events, the question naturally arises which was the dynasty that immediately preceded the Gahadavalas in the sovereignty of Kanauj. In this connection the evidence supplied by a Buddhist in- f^cription from Set-maheth^ dated V.E. 1176, i.e. A.D, 1118, cannot be ignored. It records that one Vidyadhara established a vihara for Buddhist monks at the site where the inscription was originally found, and further tells us that Vidhyadhara’s father Janaka served Gopala, the ruler of Gadhipura; i.e. Kanyakubja as his minister {sachiva), and that Vidyadhara himself served Madana, ' the forehead gem of kings.’ Though the panegyrist does not reveal what the actual relationship was between Gopala and Madana, yet the manner of his description indicates that both of them belonged to the same ruling dynasty and pro bably the latter was the former’s successor.^ Now Madana’s date is about 1118 A.D., the date of the Set-maheth inscription. Gopala, therefore, must have flourished towards the last quarter of the eleventh century A.D.. and thus about the time when the Gahadavala Chandradeva made himself master of Kanyakubja. As he is called the ruler of Gadhipura, he must have been so be fore the rise of Chandradeva because the latter was followed by an unbroken series of kings who all belonged to the Gahadavala family. It is significant that in the Set-maheth inscription Gopala is described as the Lord of Gadhipura.” but no such title is given to Madana. As Gopala flourished just before Chandradeva it is reasonable to assume that it was from him that the latter acquired the sovereignty of Kanauj. Now, who is this Gopala and to what dynasty did he belong ? No king of this name is met with in Kielhorn’s
^ Kielhom, Ind. Ant.,\o\. XVII, p. 63, Hoey, Jour. As. Soc. Beng., Vol. LXI. pt. I, Extra No., p. 60 f£. and Kielhorn, Ind. Ant., Vol. XXIV, p. 176. ^ Kielhorn at first took Madana to be a successor of Cxopala, but later on he changed his opinion and identified him with the prince of that name of the Gahadavala dynasty in view of the correct reading of the date 1176 proposed by Dr. Hoey. •‘Synchronistic Table for Northern India ” ^ for eleventh and twelfth centuries. There is, however, one record edited by Kielhom which mentions not only a Gopala but also his son and successor Madanapala. This is an inscription found at Badaiin^ (Vodamayuta) in U.P. belonging to a line of R ashtraku^ kings. They ruled over a tract of land close to Kanyakubja and as such we should consider whether Gopala and his son Madanapala of this family are identifiable with the princes of those names mentioned in the Set-maheth inscription. The (genealogy as found in the two records is given below. A. Set-ma heth ln.scription : Janaka (contemporary of king Gopala).
Vidyadhara (1118 A.D., contemporary of king Madana). B. Badaun Inscription of Lakhanapala : Chandra I Vigraiiapala
Bhuvanapala i Gopaladeva
Tribhuvana Madanapala Devapala
Bhimapala
Siarapala
Amritapala Lakhanapala ■ (c. 1200 A.D.) Now% as regards the date of the Badaun inscription. It appears that the inscription was originally dated but owing to its damaged condition Prof. Kielhom was unable to ascertain what the date actually was. On palaeographic grounds, how ever, he assigned its characters to about the twelfth or thir teenth century A.D. The latter ® appeared to him as a more probable date for the inscription. We are thus assured that the inscription is by no means earlier than the twelfth century A.D. The record show\«s that at the time it was engraved Badaun was
^ Appendix to List of Northern hiscriptions, Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII. 2 Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 61 fi. ^ Bp. Ind., Vol. V, App., p. 82, n, 11. still a city rviled over by Hindu rajas. Now as Badaun \va> conquered^ by Kutbuddin Aibak in 1202 A.D., and wa?; oon- ferred as a fief ^ upon Shamsuddin lyaltimish, the record could not have been possibly incised Jater than date. In all probabi lity, therefore, the inscription belongs to the last quarter of tlie twelfth century A.D. The inscription refers itself to the reign of Lakbanapala whose great-grandfather Devapala was the youngei' brother of Madanapala and son of Gopaladeva. Gopala and Madana ot the Set-maheth inscription flourished about 1118 A.D. (the date of that inscription). It is also quite possible to maintain from internal evidence supplied by the Badaun record that the kings Gopala and Madanapala mentioned in it flourished near about 1118 A.D. Regarding Madanapala. the BadaiTn inscription says that • in consequence of the distinguished prowess of Madanapala there never was auy talk of Hambira’s coming to tlie banks of the river of the gods,’ i.e. the Ganges.'* Hamblra, of course, means the Muhammadan raiders. The jaaasage iirobably re cords an encounter of Madanapala with these raiders and their ultimate defeat. To which invasion does this refer ? Between the invasion of Sultan Mahmud in 1018 A.D. and the invasion of Muhammad-i-sam in 1191 A.D., the only noteworthy Muham madan expedition that penetrated to the other side of the Ganges, far into the interior of India, was the one sent by the Ghaznivide king Sultan MasGd (1090-1115 A.D.) According to Muhammadan historians the army ” crossed the river Gang, in order to carry on holy w ar in Hindustan, and penetrated to a place where, except Sultan Mahmiid, no one had reached so fas with an army before.” They captured Kanauj,"’ ‘ the capital of Hind.’ Probably this invasion is referred to in the Sar- nath inscription of KumaradevI,^ queen of the Gahadavala king Gcvindachandra (1114-11-54 A.D.) in which the lattei is represented as having protected Benares from the Turushka army. Though the precise date of this invasion is not known, still as we know the date of Sultan Masiid (1090-1115 A.D.) it is quite reasonable to infer that it must have taken place some time in the first part of the first quarter of the twelftli century A.D. The reign of Madanapala of Badaun thus also falls in the same period and it is not unlikely that, probably as a vassal of the Gahadavalas, he assisted Govindachandra in warding off the Muhammadan raiders. His father, Gopaladeva
1 Elliot’s History of India, Vol. 11, p. 232. Tabakat-i-Namri, Raverty’s Transl., p. .530. 3 Yat-paurueat-pravaratah surasindhutlra-Hajnvl{mbl)rasarhgainr! katha na kad^chid-asit. I, 4. ^ Tabakat-i-Nmiri, Raverty's transL, p. 107. Elliot’s History of India, Vol. IV, p. .326. 6 Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 324. therefore should necessarily be assigned to the last quarter of the eleventh century A.D. Now, as the dates of the Rashtrakuta Madanapala and his father Gopaladeva of the Badaiin inscription synchronise respectively with those of Madana and Gopala of the Set- maheth inscription and as Badaun and Kanauj lie in close proximity to each other, we are justified in identifying the kings mentioned in one record with those of the other. It has already been shown that the immediate predecessor of Chandra- deva on the throne of Kanauj was king Gopala. The identity of this Gopala with one of the Rashtraku^ kings being now established, it is natural to suppose that it is this dynasty that ruled over the ‘ far famed capital of mediaeval India,’ prior to the rise of the Gahadavala power. •
Postscript. Since the above had been written my attention was kindly drawn by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar to a passage in the Surat grant of Trilochanapala of 1050 A.D. (H. H. Dhruva, Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, p. 201 ; Hoernle, J.R.A.S , 1905, p. 10), which refers undoubtedly to a Rashtrakuta family of Kanauj having matri monial relations with a Chaulukya dynasty of Gujarat. In interpreting this passage Hoernle stated that there was ” no ground for beheving that Rashtrakuta (Rathor) kings of Kanauj ever existed This view, however, is no longer tenable, as will appear from the preceding pages.