________________
218
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XXIV.
they were executed at the end of five months.1 And after that Mahmud founded the city of Muhammadābād and a fort around it called Jahan panah.
The purport of verses 13-15 seems to be that Imadala was appointed to govern (?) (this newly acquired) province.
The next few verses continue to speak of Malika Imädala, his conquest of Pallidesa and the construction of a fortress there. A reference to the same fort, built by the orders of Imädala as well as to the excavation of (two) tanks seems to be contained in verse 19. This Pallidesa seems to be, as shown below, some part of the Godhra District and not the famous district of this name in Rajputana.
Verse 20 speaks of a well, apparently caused to be dug by Imādala, at Ahammadapura, which probably refers to Ahmadabad and not to Ahmadnagar.
Verse 21 again tells us that Imadala constructed an excellent fort and an artificial lake [at Champakapura (Champaner) ?] with the consent of (?) Mahamuda Shah. The former perhaps refers to the outer wall and special fortification that Mahmud ordered to be built round Chimpaner.
Verses 22 and 25 mention the lord of Bagula, called Jayadeva in v. 22, and the complete destruction of his forces by Imadala. Verse 23 mentions the conquest of Rayadurga or the fort of the Raya (king),' probably belonging to the same ruler. Verse 24, however, again speaks of the destruction and capture of a fort. Now, it is not quite clear whether all these verses refer to the same conquest of the Pavägarh Chief, whose name was Jayadeva and who is to be identified with the Jayasimhadeva of the Pävägarh inscription, or Jayadeva, the lord of Bāgūla, was a person different from the Chief of Pavägarh. The only point in favour of accepting the first suggestion is the use of the word digvijaya in v. 23. The victory over Pāvāgarh may have been considered a digvijaya (world-conquest), as it was not accomplished so far by any of the Gujarat Sultāns; and it was, further, the last Hindu kingdom which had remained independent so far. It cannot be argued that the conquest of Champakapura has once been referred to, and a further detailed reference is not expected as we find the mention of Pavaka again in v. 25. This question, however, cannot be satisfactorily decided till Bägüla remains unidentified. It may have been another name of the tract over which the Champaner Chief ruled possibly due to a confusion with the name of the adjacent territory known as Vagaḍa or it may be the same as Baglan, which was a petty Rajput State between Gujarat and the Deccan. There is, however, no reference to a victory over Bāgūla' in Muslim chronicles.
Verse 26 which is only partly legible, speaks of the beautiful fort at Dadhipadra, modern Dohad, probably built by Imadala Mulaka in Šaka 1401 and Vikrama 1545. Line 21, however, seems to refer to its repair by Imadala Malika on a particular day, the details of which are obliterated.
1 C. H. I., Vol. III, pp. 309-10; Faridi, op. cit., pp. 66-67; Firishta, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 66-70; Ross, op. cit., pp. 27-31.
For details see p. 221 below. For details see p. 219 below.
Bomb. Gaz., Vol. I, Pt. i, p. 247 and Bird, op. cit., p. 212; Bayley, citing Tabakat-i-Akbari, op. cit., p. 210. It is strange that there is no reference to this in Mirat-i Sikandari, which is usually followed by the author of Mirat-i-Ahmadi; C. H. I., Vol. III, p. 612 and pl. XXV. A note in Bayley, op. cit., p. 212, says that "this appears to have been an upper citadel; apparently the remains of the upper fort now existing are of Muhammadan construction, and are attributed to Mahmud Bigarha, who is said to have named the citadel Man Mahesh". See Bomb. Gaz., Vol. III, p. 190.
South and perhaps contiguous to the Pallideéa (modern Godhrā tālukā) of the inscription. For details see pp. 220-21 below.
