________________
he SUKRITASAMKIRTANA of ARÍSIMHA
mentioned, by the Girnār inscriptivns, where it is repeatedly said that, from the ( Vikrama ) year (12)70, in Dholkā and other cities, he sealed “affairs with the seal. "1 The acceptance of Arisimha's statements makes it, of course, necessary to reject the suppositions expressed on a former occasion (Indian Antiquary, loc. cit.) that the appointment of Vastupāla and Tejahpāla marks the period when Layaņaprasāda deserted Bhima and began to found a kingdom of his own.
The new discoveries made since 1877 render it doubtful whether the Sarvesvara or his son ever was unfaithful to his master. It appears rather as if Lavanaprasāda, in his relation to the latter, although he practically ruled independently over the southern part of the Gurjara kingdom, yet conducted himself at least outwardly as a vassal, and that Professor V. A. Kathvate is quite justified in comparing? his relation to Bhima with that of the Maratha Peshyās to the court of Sātārā. Of special significance for this point is the Lekhapañchāșikā: discovered by Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar, which, as he correctly acknowledges, was composed in the Vikrama year.1288, that is, twelve years after Vastupāla's appointment as minister and during Bhima's reign. This little work gives formulæ for letters and documents of different kinds. Among the latter there is a gift of land, dated v.-S. 1288 in which the Mahāmandalesvarādhi pati, the great overlord of the tributary princes,' Rāņā Lāvanyaprasāda, is named as giver. Befor his name stands the whole genealogy of the Chaulukya kings of Anhilvād, and it is remarked that, by the grace of his master Bhima II., he possessed the Khețakāhāra pathaka, district of Kaira..'' Then the same work contains, as an example of a state treaty, an agreement of the same date between the Mahamandalesvara Rāņā Lāvanyaprasāda and Simhaņa ( Singhaņa ), the Mahārajādhirāja of Devagiri, in which both contracting parties respectively promise to respect the other's boundaries, to keep peace and to help each other. Although the first of these two documents is evidently nothing more than a formula, and of the second nothing can be certainly proved as to whether it is a copy of a real treaty, yet their value remains considerable. Then, as the author of the Lekhapañchāśikā was a contemporary of Layaņaprasāda, we may take for granted that he describes the political relations in general correctly. We may believe him on the one hand that in the Vikrama year 1288 Lavaņaprasāda was authorised to make treaties with foreign princes and consequently possessed a high degree of independence. On the other hand we must admit, that if Lavaņaprasāda at that time made gifts of land, he employed the form ordinarily used by tributary princes and acknowledgod the overlordship of Bhima. If this be correct, there can be no question of a defection on the part of Lavaņaprasāda, at least until v.-S. 1288. The relation must rather have been as Arisimha gives it. Lavaņaprasāda stood higher than all other rulers of districts, and governed the kingdom of his master in the strength of the trust committed to him. However free and high may
1 Arch. Reports of Western India, Vol. II p. 170. Vastupāla calls himself in this, and in corresponding passages in other inscriptions, Sarvesvara; his brother, on the other hand, Mahāmātya.
2 Kirtikaumudi, p. xxv. 3. Report on Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1882-83, p. 28 ff, and p. 222 ff.
4 This should be written p. 223 for kheţakāvāpathake, and p. 224 for khețakadhārāpathake. As in other passages of the formulary, the expression is incorrect. For āhāra originally corresponded approxinlately to the modern zilla and pathaka to taluka. Moreover, similar combinations of the two expressions are found in real presentations of land in later times.
For Private & Personal Use Only
Jain Education International
www.jainelibrary.org
