Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 22

18
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[FEBRUARY, 1912.
11 refers to his having barnt Pamchapura, and captured but not killed its lord. Verse 12 again is simply eulogistic, but, in the verse following with which the letter ends, Vibhishana requests Kilhana to accept the string of pearls or even Lankâ but promise safety to him. Then again follows a prose line (lines 19-20) which by the way informs us that this string of pearls was presented by the ocean to Râmabhadra when he was intent upon constructing the bridge. Verses 14-15 state that there was one Valha who belonged to the Doda race and who was a subordinate of Kilhana and that his son was Lakshmana under whose auspices the prasasti was composed. This is followed by the date which is Thursday the 7th of the bright half of Magha of the (Vikrama) year 1224.
It will be seen from the above account that this inscription is a prasasti or panegyric. and its object is to describe Kilhana's conquest of Pamchapura and its chief. Kilhana was a maternal uncle and feudatory of the Châhamâna sovereign Prithviraja. This Prithviraja is not the celebrated Prithviraja who fought with and was captured by Shihabu-d-Din Ghûr in A.D. 1192, as Tod supposes. Because, for this Prithviraja we have dates ranging only from A.D. 1182-92, whereas the date of our inscription is v.E. 1224 A D. 1167. Prithviraja of this record must therefore be the same as the Prithviraja who preceded Someśvara. Kilhana, we are expressly told, was put in charge of the fort of Asi or Asikâ, i.e., Hâusi, to check the progress of Haminira, i.e., of course the Muhammadan emperors. There can be no doubt that the Muhammadans were at this time attempting to pour into India. This is also clear from the Delhi-Siwâlik pillar inscription of v.E. 1220A.D. 1164 wherein the Châhamâna Visaladeva is represented to have exterminated the Mlechchhas and made Aryavarta what its name signifies, i.e., an abode of the Aryans. It was, therefore, urgently necessary to put a stop to this by appointing a brave and clever personage to the charge of the Hansi fort, especially as it was on the route to India. Tod says: "Asigarh or Asi lurg is celebrated as the scene of contest between the Hindus and early Muhammedans. It was by this route, that most of Shahâbuddin's attempts were made to wrest the throne of Hind from Prithviraja; and often did the warriors of the mountains of Cabul find their graves before Asi. Even now it presents the appearance of a great sepulchre all around but especially to the west. The route was by Pachapattan, the town of purity, on the Sutlej, to Bhatner and Fateh-abal, to Asi and Delhi."3 From these words of Tod's the importance of fortifying and maintaining the fort of Hûnsi towards the close of the Châhamâna supremacy is quite clear; and what is equally clear is the necessity of keeping a strong hold on Pachapattana on the Sutlej mentioned by Tod, which can be no other than Pamchapura of our inscription. Probably the chief of Pamchapura about this time did not owe fealty to the Chihamâna dynasty, and it was, therefore, absolutely indispensable to put him down and take possession of his city. This explains why the capture of Pamchapura and its chief is considered so important in the inscription.
The praiasti was composed by one Lakshamana, who was, we are told, a Doda by race. The Dodas have beer. given a place by Tod in his list of thirty-six royal races of Rajasthân,* but he tells nothing about them. I believe they are the same as the Dods or Dodias, a clan of the Paramâras. The province in Rajputânâ now called Hâdotî was originally held by them and was wrested from them by the Khichis of Gagronâ, who in their turn had to give it up to the Ilâdâs after whom the province was so called. In the time of Mahmud Ghazni, Merat, Balaude hr, etc., were held by the Dogs, of whom Haradatta was the most pre-eminent. Dods are now found as Jagirdars near Lârâ in Tonk.
Above, Vol. XIX, p. 218.
3 Transactions, Roy. As. Soc., Vol. I, p. 135. Innals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 106 (S. K. Lahiri & Co's edition.).