صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

No regnal years being available, the year of reign has been deduced

from the figure given in Puri and KēnFirst and last years.

dupātnā Plates, viz., 33, which as aŋka is equal to 24th year. See remarks under Rājarāja III (supra p. 117]. The king was son of Anaŋga-Bhima Dēva by his wife Kastūrā

Dēvi. In Ep. Rep., No. 307, he is also desRelationship.

cribed as born of the king Anaŋga-Bhima. The name is generally written as Narasimha. The copperplates speak of the king's invasion of Rārbā and Varēn

dra and the defeat of Yavanas there. This Historical Facts.

fight with Bengal Mahomedays is corroborated by Tabakat-i-Nāşiri. I quote the passages in full, as being

J. I. 16

the statements of a contemporary, and, in one instance, of an eyewitness:

“In the year 641 H., the Rāe of Jāj-nagar commenced molesting “ the Lakhaņawati territory; and in the month of Shawwāl, 641 H. “Malik Tughril-i-Taghān Khan marched towards the Jāj-nagar coun“try, and this servant of the State [Minhāj-i-Sarāj, Jūrjāni] accom"panied him on that holy expedition. On reaching Katāsin, which was “the boundary of Jāj-nagar (on the side of Lakhaņawati], on Saturday “ the 6th of the month of Zi-ķa’dah 641 H., Malik Tughril-i-Tughān

Khān made his troops mount, and an engagement commenced. The "holy-warriors of Islām passed over two ditches, and the Hindū infidels “ took to flight. So far as they continued in the author's sight, except “the fodder which was before their elephants, nothing fell into the " hands of the footmen of the army of the Islām, and moreover, Malik “Tughril-i-Pughān Khān's commands were that no one should molest “the elephants, and for this reason the fierce fire of battle subsided.”

“When the engagement had been kept up until midday the foot“men of the Musalman army-everyone of them-returned [to the "camp ?] to eat their food, and the Hindūs, in another direction stole

through the cane Jangal, and took five elephants; and about two “hundred foot and fifty horsemen came upon the rear of a portion of " the Musalmān army. The Muḥammadans sustained an overthrow, “and a great number of these holy warriors attained martyrdom; and “Malik Tughril-i-Tughān Khān retired from that place without having "effected his object, and returned to Lakhaņawati.” (p. 738).

“In the same year likewise [642 H.], the Rāe of Jāj-nagar, in order to avenge the plundering of Katāsin, which had taken place the preceding year, as has been already recorded, having turned his face towards Lakhaņawați territory, on Tuesday, the 13th of the month of Shawwāl, 642 H., the army of infidels of Jāj-nagar, consisting of elephants, and pāyiks [foot-men] in great numbers, arrived opposite Lakbaņawati. Malik Țughril-i-Tughān Khān came out of the city to confront them. The infidel host, on coming beyond the frontier of the Jāj-nagar terri. tory, first took Lakhan-or; and Fakhr-ul-Mulk, Karim-ud-din, Lāghri, who was the feudatory of Lakhan-or, with a body of Musalmāns, they made martyrs of, and after that, appeared before the gate of Lakhan. awati. The second day after that, swift messengers arrived from above [the Do-ābah and Awadh, &c.], and gave information respecting the army of Islām that it was near at hand. Panic now took possession of the infidels, and they decamped." (pp. 739-40).

This inroad up to Lakhaņawați is also indicated in the following: -
“The leader of the forces of Jāj-nagar was a person, by name,

Sāban-tar[Sāwantara ?], the son-in-law of the Rāe, who during the time of Malik 'Izz-ud-din Tughril-i-Tughan Khăn, had advanced to the bank of the river of Lakhaņawați, and having shown the greatest audacity, had driven the Musalman forces as far as the gate [of the city] of Lakbaņawati.” (pp. 762-3).

“In the year 642 H., the infidels of Jāj-nagar appeared before the gate of Lakhaņawați.” (p. 665).

Other fights with a succeeding Bengal ruler also took place during this king's time.

“ After be" [Malik Ikhtiyār-ud-din Yüz-bak-i-Tugbril Khan]" went to that part, and brought that country” [Lakhaņawati]

" [Lakhaņawați] “under his jurisdiction, hostility arose between him and the Rãe of Jāj-nagar. The leader of the forces of Jāj-nagar was a person, by name, Sában-tar [see above). In Malik Tughril Khân-i-Yüz-bak's time, judging from the past, he [the Jāj-nagar leader] manifested great boldness, and fought, and was defeated. Again, another time, Malik Tughril Khan-iYüz-bak fought an engagement with the Rāe of Jāj-nagar, and again * came out victorious.

"On a third occasion, Malik Yüz-bak sustained a slight reverse, and a white elephant than which there was no other more valuable in that part, and which was ruttish, got out of his hands in the field of battle, and fell into the hands of the infidels of Jäj-nagar.

"The following year, however, Malik Yüz-bak asked assistance from the court of Delhi, and then marched an army from Lakbaņawati into the territory of Umurdan, and unexpectedly reached the Rae's capital, which city they style Ūmurdan. The Rae of that place retired before Malik Yüz-bak, and the whole of the Rãe's family, dependants, and followers, and his wealth, and elephants, fell into the hands of the Musalmān forces." (p. 763).

Minhāj-i-Sarāj gives the dates of the figlits with Malik Tughril-iTughān Khān (A,H. 641-2); but gives no dates of the fights with Malik Tughril Khān-i-Yüz-bak. The latter could not have got Bengal before Malik Tamur Khān-i-ki-rān who died on “ Friday, the end of the month of Shawwāl," A.H. 644, or A.D. 1247, March (p. 741); and he must have ceased to rule before the capture of Lakhaņawați by Malik Tāj-ud-din Arsalān Khān Sanjar-i-chast, in 657 A.H, or A.D., 1259, when Malik 'Izz-ud-din Balban-i-Yüz-baki is said to have been the feudatory in charge of Lakhaṇawati (pp. 769-70).

In J.A.S.B., LXV, 1896, pp. 232-4, Babu N. N. Vasu has argued that the "Saban-tar" who led the forces of Jāj-nagar was probably Narasimha Dēva I, and “that Minhāj, by mistake has described the son to be the son-in-law." Now that the fights have been in this

[ocr errors]

article shewn to have taken place in the time of Nfsimha Dēva himself he will not, I trust, be identified with his son-in-law, the sătrā (lit. Sāmanta-Rāya).

NȚsimha Dēva I will be remembered, however, by posterity, as the king under whose orders the great temple of Kaņārka was built. All the copperplates agree in ascribing to him the erection of the sun Temple at Köņākoņa.

In Crikūrmam temple no inscription of the king himself has been found. No. 307 records a grant by one Sābasa-malla during this king's reign. In No. 352 is recorded a grant by one Vijayāditya whose father Rājarāja was a minister (mamtri) of this king, Vira Nísimha I; [see Dr. Hultzsch, Ep. Ind., Vol. V., p. 33].

Dr. R. G, Bhaņdārkar has discovered an Alaykāra work, Ēkāvali, whose author Vidyādhara flourished in the court of a Narasimha Dēva, king of Utkala and Kalinga, (Narasimha II., according to Dr. Bhaņdārkar), [Report on Sanskrit MSS., 1887-91, pp. LXV-LXIX). This king I am inclined to identify with Nșsiṁha Dēva I, from the mention in the poem of the poet Harihara and his patron king Arjuna of Mālwa (whose latest known date is 9th September, A.D. 1215), and from Vidyadhara's description of the Utkala king as having humbled the pride of Hammira, this being a title of the early Sultāns of Delhi. [See Thomas, Chron. Path. kings, pp. 15, 16, 20, 50, 70, 71, 75, 90, 91, 103, 108, 119, 123, 127, 137; Ind. Ant., Vol. XX., p. 208 et seq. ; J.A.S.B., Vol. XLIII, p. 108].

[Since writing this, the Ēkāvali has been printed in the Bombay Sanskrit Series under the editorship of Mr. K. P. Trivedi ; and thanks to Dr. Bhaņdārkar I have just got a copy of it. In the introductory note (pp. xxxiii-xxxvii), Dr. Bhaņdārkar is still inclined to take the king to be Narasimha Dēva II, chiefly from the fact that he is described in the Puri copperplates as

ces as “kavi-priyaḥ" (A. IV. 42), and “kavi-kumuda-candro" (A. V.3). This identification, however, does not explain the specific mention of the fights with “Hammira, “ Yavana" and "Çaka” kings in Bengal, (cf. pp. 176, 177, 202, 203, 257, 260, 326). Nrsimha Dēva II has nowhere been credited with any invasion of Bengal or with any war against the Mahomedans. For a fuller discussion, see Appendix II.]

Ēķāvali is fortunate enough to have got a commentary named Taraļā from the great commentator Mallinātha. It has been several times quoted in the citra-mimāṁsā and kuvalayānanda of Appaya Dikşita

IX. Bhānu Döva I.
[Caka 1186

Çaka 1200-1].
The following two inscriptions of this king's time are known :-

[merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

Regnal years wanting, the year of the Kēndupātnā copperplates

has been accepted, viz., 18 aŋkas, equal to First and Last year.

fifteenth year. The last year of this king is ascertained from the initial year of his successor, as 1200-1 Çaka. Bhānu Dēva was son of Nýsimha Dēva I by Sitā Dāvi, daughter of

Mālacandra. He is also called Vira-Bhānu Relationship.

Dēva. In the copperplates he is said to have given one hundred grants of lands with houses and gardens to good Crõtriya Brāhmaṇas, written on copperplates.

X, Nrsimha Dāva II, [Çaka 1200-1

Çaka 1227-28]. A considerable number of inscriptions of this king's time has been brought to light :-



1 T.

Çaka-varaşambulu 1201 gunēmți Pra- Ep. Rep., No. 356, of Verified,
tāpa-Vira - Qri- Narasimhya - dēvarn | Grīkūrmam.
(rap) pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rajya
samiyvatsarambalu 3 gu çrāhi Caitra-

« السابقةمتابعة »