________________
No. 30.)
BHOPAL PLATES OF THE MAHAKUMARA HARICHAMDRADEVA.
Jayavarman down to Vindhyavarman. According to the Pipliänagar (V. 8. 1267) and the two Bets of Bhopāls plates (V. S. 1270 and 1272) of Arjunavarman, Yabövarman was succeeded by his son Ajayavarman, while in the incomplete) Plates of Jayavarman, the Pipliānagar Plates of the Mahākumāra Harischandra (V. S. 1235 and 1236) and the Bhopal Plates of the Mabākumāra Udayavarman (V. S. 1256), Yalovarman is stated to have been succeeded by Jayavarman. From the information supplied by these records Kielhorn came to the following conclusion: “Yas. varman had three sons, Jayavarman, Ajayavarman, and Lakshmivarman; and he was in the first instance succeeded by Jayavarman. Soon after his succession (and certainly some time between Vikrama 1192 and 1200), Jayavarman was dethroned by Ajayavarman, who and whose succ68sors then became the main branch of the Paramāra family in Mälava, and continued to style them. selves Mahārājas. The third brother, Lakshmivarman, however, did not submit to Ajayavarman; and, as stated in E (i.e., the Bhopal grant of Udayavarman), he succeeded by force of arms in appropriating a portion of Mālava, which he and his son and grandson de facto ruled over as indopendent chiefs. At the same time, Lakshmivarman and, after him, his son and suocessor Harischandrs looked upon Jayavarman, though deposed, as the rightful sovereign of Mälava, and, in my opinion, it is for this reason that Harischandra, in the grant D. (i.e., the Pipliānagar plates), professes to rule by the favour of that prince, and that both Lakshmivarman and Harischandra claim for themselves no higher title than that of Mahākumāra, a title which was handed down to, and adopted by, even Laksbmivarman's grandson Udayavarman.". Though there is nothing definite to show that Kielhorn is wrong in his assumption, I prefer to agree with Dr. Ganguly that Jayavarman and Ajayavarman mentioned in the above inscriptions are identical. The later inscriptions, probably those issued after the re-occupation of Dhārā, call him Ajayavarman while the earlier inscriptions mention him as Jayavarman. Prof. Hall's theory that 'Lakshmivarman sat on the throne with his sire' and was thus the eldest son of Yahovarman cannot be substantiated. When Yasovarman died, Jayavarman as his eldest son must bave succeeded to the throne of Malwă. Sometime before his death Yabōvarman might have placed Lakshmivarman in charge of a small principality which the latter ruled under the title of a Mabākumāra or, he might have wrested & part of the Paramära empire which passed into the hands of enemies and established himself as the ruler. In any case, as he adopted a feudatory title he seems to have ruled only as a subordinate of the main branch. The boast of Lakshmivarman that he obtained his sovereignty by force of arms as found in his Ujjain Plate is, however, not altogether an empty one as borne out by inscrip tions. We find from the Bändā Plate of the Chandēla Madanavarmadēva that this ruler made a gift in V. S. 1190 when he was encamped near Bhailasvämin. As I have shown below, this place was in the Mahadvadasaka mandala mentioned in our grant. What led this Chandēla ruler to encamp at the place cannot be ascertained. But it is not unlikely that he was, at this period, leading a campaign against the Mālava ruler and encroached upon the Paramāra territories soon after. Probably we find & confirmation of this in the verge 11 of the Mau stone inscription of Madanavarman', which says that the ruler of Mälava, full of arrogance, was quickly exterminated' by this ruler. This Mälava ruler was possibly Yasovarman himself. But that the Chandelas
1J. A. 8. B., Vol. V, p. 378. * J.A.0. 8., Vol. VII, pp. 25 ff. . Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, pp. 350 f. .J. A. 8. B., Vol. VII (1838), pp. 736 f.
Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, pp. 254 ff. and pl. • Ibid., Vol. XIX, p. 348.
History of the Paramära Dynasty, p. 181. AJ. A. O. S., Vol. VII, p. 36 and Ganguly, op. cit., p. 179, n. 3.
Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, p. 208 and pl. 10 A hove, Vol. I, pp. 197 ff.
