________________
184
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1877.
afforded by Merutunga, who tells ust that soon during this period the enmity between MAafter his accession to the throne Mûlarấja was lava and Gujaråt begun, owing to an affront assailed by two armies, that of the Sapà dalg- offered either to Chamunda or to Durlabha kshiya Raja of $ & kambhari (Şâmbhar) when procceeding to Banâras. A great deal and that of Båra pa, the general of Tailap of confusion has been caused in this account of Kaly &ņa. Unable to resist his foes, he fled to by the fact that Mr. Forbes's grant of BhimaKanthadurga, the modern Kanthkot in deva II., dated 1266 Vikrama (1209-10 A.D.), the eastern (Vågad) division of Kachh, and there does not enumerate Vallabharaja ainong bided his time. Now it seems to me very pro- the kings of Anhilvâd, and that some of the bable that the Pandit who composed the pra- later Muhammadan historians place the expesasti, in his anxiety to find points of resemblance dition of Mahmûd Ghaznavi in the reign of between his patron and the various gods, found Jåmand, i.e. Chamunda. The first circunnothing more to the purpose than Mülaraja's stance has led Mr. Forbes to doubt that Vallabha temporary stay on the hill of Kantha, which actually reigned. The new collection of grants he boldly compared to Siva's residing on Kai- settles this question in favour of the chroniclers. lâsa.
Seven out of the eight grants which give the The second point is clearer. Meratanga says complete genealogy of the Chaulukya kings, in the Prabandhachintamani that Malaraja was a Nos. 4-10, include Vallabharaja, while one constant worshipper of Somanátha, and used to only, No. 3, omits him. It is evident that the perform a pilgrimage to Somanatha Pathan every shortness of his reign induced the writers of Monday, i.e. a journey of about 250 miles, and Mr. Forbes's grant and of our No. 3 to omit back! Somanatha was so much pleased with this his name. devotion that he personally migrated first to The other point, the discrepancy between the Mandali (now Mandal, in the Viramgâm Tâlaka), chronology of the chroniclers and that of the and later to AŅhilvad. At Maņdali, Mälaraja Ayin Akbare and other late Muhammadan built for him the temple called Müles vara. writers, is very serious. If Châmunda is placed This is evidently the Malan â thadeva to
in 1024 A.D. instead of in 1010, the dates which the village of Kamboika was given. of the Gujarati writers are entirely disarranged,
It is a pity that the historical portion of the and the confusion becomes worse by the identiinscription is so short, and affords no informa- fication of the descendant of the DALichlim, tion regarding the great expeditions of M0
whom Mahmûd is said to have placed on the laraja against the Abhira or Yâdava of Va- gádi of Anhilvad, with Durlabhasena (Darmanasthali (Vanthali) and the ruler of Lâta. labharâja). Mr. Forbes's chapter on this period Its date, 1043 Vikrama (986-87 A.D.), agrees with is, therefore, most unsatisfactory. His narrative the statement of the chroniclers that Mülarâja first follows the account of the Gujaratis, which ruled from 998 to 1053 of the same era.
is plain enough. When, afterwards, the conflictAccording to the acoount of Merutunga, Mûla- ing version of the Muhammadans is given, acraja was succeeded by his son Châmunda, 1 companied by hints that this may contain, after who ruled for thirteen years, until 1066 (A.D. all, the real historical facts, the reader is left in 1009-10). After him came his two sons Vall&- an uncomfortable state of perplexity and doubt. bha rája and Durlabharâjs, the former This is, however, not the fault of Mr. Forbes, in of whom died of small-pox after & reign of six whose time it would have been difficult to obtain months, while the latter occupied the throne satisfactory solution of the question without until 8. 1078 (A.D. 1021-22). In that year he a thorough study of the rare MSS. of the earlier abdicated in favour of his nephew Bhima- Musalman historians of the Ghaznavi dynasty. dova I., the son of his younger brother NA- It is gratifying that now the Gujarati chronigaraja. No historical events are recorded clers can be proved to be in the right, both by of these three reigns except that both Châ- the testimony of early Musalman writers and manda and Durlabha became ascetics, and that of the inscriptions of Bhimadeva I. 1 Ras MALA, vol. I. p. 51.
MAlardja's accession cannot be correct, as Tailapa began The name is spelt Barp by Mr. Forbes. The Govern- to rule in 978 A.D., and Malardja in 941-42. ment copy roada Barakha, probably a mistake for Barapa. Ras Mald, vol. I. p.71. The statement that this invasion occurred shortly after
