________________
182
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1877
Forbes has already pointed out, not simply a work of Hemachandra. It has probably been revised by Abhayatilaka in 1312 Vikrama, and contains a sufficient number of anachronisms to prove that even its earlier parts are not simply the work of an author of the 12th century. But on the whole it is more trust- worthy than Meratanga's 'variæ historiæ. Now this work merely states that Mülaraja was a Chaulukya, and extols his valour aud power. The statement of our inscription regarding the donor's origin is very short, but, I think, sufficient to further discredit Merutunga. He calls himself a descendant of the Solankis (chaulukikánvaya) and son of the great king of kings Raji, and says that he acquired the Sárasvatamandala, i.e. the province watered by the Sarasvati, by (the strength of) his arm." Now it may be conceded that the assassination of Så mantasimha might, and probably would, be represented by the pandits of the murderer as an honest victory gained by the strength of his arm. But it does not at all agree with Merutunga's narrative that Raji is called 'the great king of kings. Such a title would hardly be given to a wandering Rajput younger son I do not think that the desire to do honour to his patron's father would induce a pandit to call him maharajadhiraja if he had not really been a king seated on the gadi. At least, before I could admit such an hypothesis, I should require a much stronger proof than Merutunga's in- consistent story. . As matters now stand, I think it safer to take the statement of Mûlaraja's grant as the basis for the reconstruction of the origin of the Chaulukya rule in Gujarat. The above-cited words of the inscription, coupled with the fact that Mûlarâja is always, in the grants and elsewhere, named as the first Chaulukya king of Anhilvåd, lead to the conclusion that his father was actually king of the native country of this branch of the Chaulu- kyas, and that Mûlaraja, either driven out of his paternal realm by other enemies, or impelled by ambition and hanger for land,' attacked and conquered northern Gajarât. The question is now where Râji's home and kingdom was. The Gujarat chroniclers state that in 752
Vikrama, Bhûråja, Bh û y a da, or B hûvada (ie. Bhů pati), king of Kaly âņakataka, in Kånoj, held Gujarat and destroyed Jayasekhara ; that after him Karnaditya, Chandråditya, Somaditya, and finally Bhuvanåditya occupied the throne of Kaly âņa, the last being Raji's father. Mr. Forbes, Mr. Elphinstone, and others have identified this Kalyana with the capital of the Dekhaņi Châlukyas, and have assumed that the Gujaratis are in error. I must confess that until very lately I have been of the same opinion. But a careful reconsideration of the question inclines me to side now with the native writers. The fact that Kalyana in the Dekhan was for more than eight centuries a Chalukya capital, and that no famous town of this name has been traced in Kanoj, is no doubt a strong argument in favour of the European historians. It becomes all the stronger by the repeated statements of the Dekhani Châlokyas in their inscriptions that they conquered Gujarat, and by the fact that a grant of a Châlukya king Vijay a râja dated Samvat (i.e. probably Saka Samvat) 394, or 472-73 A.D., has been found, which proves that that king held the Bharuch districts. But the arguments in favour of the native statement appear still stronger. Firstly, the form of the family name used by the Dekhanis slightly differs from that given by the Gujaratis. The latter always call themselves Chaulukyas. (whence Solunki or Solanki), and the latter are named now Châlukyas or Chalukyas, now Chalikyas, or even Chalkyas. Hence their modern descendants are called Chalke. I do not doubt that Chaulukya and Chalukya are only dialectic forms of the same name. But it is inexplicable why the founder of the Pathan dynasty should call himself Chaulukika if he came direct from Kalyana, where the form Chalukya was used. On the other hand, the difference would be easily explained if he was descended from a northern branch of the family, separated for a long time from its southern brethren. Secondly, the kuladevatá, or family deity, of the Dekhani Chalukyas is Vishnu, while the Gujarati Chaulukyas are
Mr. Forben (p. 969) gives the name of the reviser as Leśljye, or Les jaya (Ind. Ant. vol. IV. p.72) as Lesåbbai. The Pathan copy in Hemacharya's Bhandar roads clearly Srtjinesvarastridishyaleabhayatilakagani, ia the in-
significant pupil of Sri Jineśvara Sûri, Abhayatilakugani. Jaina names are freqnertly formed with abhaya, e.g. Abhayadeva Leafjaya has no meaning. Lesa means 's perticle,' and fishyalesa literally ' a particle of a pupil,' i.e. 'an insignificant pupil.'
