THE GURJJARAS
(A.D. 580-808.)
During Valabhi and Chálukya ascendancy a small Gurjjara kingdom
flourished in and about Broach. As has been noticed in the Valabhi
chapter the Gurjjaras were a foreign tribe who came to Gujarát from
Northern India. All the available information regarding the Broach
Gurjjaras comes from nine copperplates, [393] three of them forged, all
obtained from South Gujarát. These plates limit the regular Gurjjara
territory to the Broach district between the Mahí and the Narbadá,
though at times their power extended north to Khedá and south to the
Tápti. Like the grants of the contemporary Gujarát Chálukyas all the
genuine copperplates are dated in the Traikútaka era which begins in
A.D. 249-50. [394] The Gurjjara capital seems to have been Nándípurí
or Nándor, [395] the modern Nándod the capital of Rájpipla in Rewa
Kántha about thirty-four miles east of Broach. Two of their grants
issue Nándípurítah [396] that is 'from Nándípurí' like the Valabhítah
or 'from Valabhi' of the Valabhi copperplates, a phrase which in both
cases seems to show the place named was the capital since in other
Gurjjara grants the word vásaka or camp occurs. [397]
[Copperplates.] Though the Gurjjaras held a considerable territory
in South Gujarát their plates seem to show they were not independent
rulers. The general titles are either Samadhigata-panchamahásabada
'He who has attained the five great titles,' or Sámanta Feudatory. In
one instance Jayabhata III. who was probably a powerful ruler is
called Sámantádhipati [398] Lord of Feudatories. It is hard to say to
what suzerain these Broach Gurjjaras acknowledged fealty. Latterly
they seem to have accepted the Chálukyas on the south as their
overlords. But during the greater part of their existence they may
have been feudatories of the Valabhi dynasty, who, as mentioned above
were probably Gurjjaras who passed from Málwa to South Gujarát and
thence by sea to Valabhi leaving a branch in South Gujarát.
The facts that in A.D. 649 (Valabhi 330) a Valabhi king had a 'camp of
victory' at Broach where Ranagraha's plate [399] shows the Gurjjaras
were then ruling and that the Gurjjara king Dadda II. gave shelter
to a Valabhi king establish a close connection between Valabhi and
the Nándod Gurjjaras.
Their copperplates and seals closely resemble the plates and seals of
the Gujarát Chálukyas. The characters of all but the forged grants are
like those of Gujarát Chálukya grants and belong to the Gujarát variety
of the Southern India style. At the same time it is to be noted that
the royal signature at the end of the plates is of the northern type,
proving that the Gurjjaras were originally northerners. The language
of most of the grants is Sanskrit prose as in Valabhi plates in a
style curiously like the style of the contemporary author Bána in
his great works the Kádambarí and Harshacharita. From this it may be
inferred that Bána's style was not peculiar to himself but was the
style in general use in India at that time.
[Gurjjara Tree.] The following is the Gurjjara family tree:
Dadda I. A.D. 580.
|
Jayabhata I. A.D. 605.
|
Dadda II. A.D. 633.
|
Jayabhata II. A.D. 655.
|
Dadda III. A.D. 680.
|
Jayabhata III. A.D. 706-734.
A recently published grant [400] made by Nirihullaka, the chieftain of
a jungle tribe in the lower valley of the Narbadá, shows that towards
the end of the sixth century A.D. that region was occupied by wild
tribes who acknowledged the supremacy of the Chedi or Kalachuri kings:
a fact which accounts for the use of the Chedi or Traikútaka era
in South Gujarát. Nirihullaka names with respect a king Sankarana,
whom Dr. Bühler would identify with Sankaragana the father of the
Kalachuri Buddhavarmman who was defeated by Mangalísa the Chálukya
about A.D. 600. [401] Sankaragana himself must have flourished
about A.D. 580, and the Gurjjara conquest must be subsequent to this
date. Another new grant, [402] which is only a fragment and contains
no king's name, but which on the ground of date (Sam. 346 = A.D. 594-5)
and style may be safely attributed to the Gurjjara dynasty, shows that
the Gurjjaras were established in the country within a few years of
Sankaragana's probable date.
A still nearer approximation to the date of the Gurjjara conquest is
suggested by the change in the titles of Dharasena I. of Valabhi, who
in his grants of Samvat 252 [403] (A.D. 571) calls himself Mahárája,
while in his grants of 269 and 270 [404] (A.D. 588 and 589), he adds
the title of Mahásámanta, which points to subjection by some foreign
power between A.D. 571 and A.D. 588. It seems highly probable that this
power was that of the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál; and that their successes
therefore took place between A.D. 580 and 588 or about A.D. 585.
[Dadda I. C. 585-605 A.D.] The above mentioned anonymous grant of
the year 346 (A.D. 594-95) is ascribed with great probability to
Dadda I. who is known from the two Khedá grants of his grandson
Dadda II. (C. 620-650 A.D.) [405] to have "uprooted the Nága"
who must be the same as the jungle tribes ruled by Nirihullaka
and are now represented by the Náikdás of the Panch Maháls and the
Talabdas or Locals of Broach. The northern limit of Dadda's kingdom
seems to have been the Vindhya, as the grant of 380 (A.D. 628-29)
says that the lands lying around the feet of the Vindhya were for
his pleasure. At the same time it appears that part at least of
Northern Gujarát was ruled by the Mahásámanta Dharasena of Valabhi,
who in Val. 270 (A.D. 589-90) granted a village in the áhára of
Khetaka (Khedá). [406] Dadda is always spoken of as the Sámanta,
which shows that while he lived his territory remained a part of the
Gurjjara kingdom of Bhínmál. Subsequently North Gujarát fell into the
hands of the Málava kings, to whom it belonged in Hiuen Tsiang's time
(C. 640 A.D.). [407] Dadda I. is mentioned in the two Khedá grants of
his grandson as a worshipper of the sun: the fragmentary grant of 346
(A.D. 594-95) which is attributed to him gives no historical details.
[Jayabhata I. Vítarága, C. 605-620 A.D.] Dadda I. was succeeded
by his son Jayabhata I. who is mentioned in the Khedá grants as a
victorious and virtuous ruler, and appears from his title of Vítarága
the Passionless to have been a religious prince.
[Dadda II. Prasántarága, C. 620-650 A.D.] Jayabhata I. was succeeded
by his son Dadda II. who bore the title of Prasántarága the
Passion-calmed. Dadda was the donor of the two Khedá grants of 380
(A.D. 628-29) and 385 (A.D. 633-34), and a part of a grant made by
his brother Ranagraha in the year 391 (A.D. 639-40) has lately been
published. [408] Three forged grants purporting to have been issued by
him are dated respectively Saka 400 (A.D. 478), Saka 415 (A.D. 493),
and Saka 417 (A.D. 495). [409] Both of the Khedá grants relate to the
gift of the village of Siríshapadraka (Sisodra) in the Akrúresvara
(Anklesvar) vishaya to certain Bráhmans of Jambusar and Broach. In
Ranagraha's grant the name of the village is lost.
Dadda II.'s own grants describe him as having attained the five great
titles, and praise him in general terms: and both he and his brother
Ranagraha sign their grants as devout worshippers of the sun. Dadda
II. heads the genealogy in the later grant of 456 (A.D. 704-5),
[410] which states that he protected "the lord of Valabhi who had
been defeated by the great lord the illustrious Harshadeva." The event
referred to must have been some expedition of the great Harshavardhana
of Kanauj (A.D. 607-648), perhaps the campaign in which Harsha was
defeated on the Narbadá by Pulakesi II. (which took place before
A.D. 634). The protection given to the Valabhi king is perhaps referred
to in the Khedá grants in the mention of "strangers and suppliants
and people in distress." If this is the case the defeat of Valabhi
took place before A.D. 628-29, the date of the earlier of the Khedá
grants. On the other hand, the phrase quoted is by no means decisive,
and the fact that in Hiuen Tsiang's time Dhruvasena of Valabhi was
son-in-law of Harsha's son, makes it unlikely that Harsha should have
been at war with him. It follows that the expedition referred to may
have taken place in the reign of Dharasena IV. who may have been the
son of Dhruvasena by another wife than Harsha's granddaughter.
To Dadda II.'s reign belongs Hiuen Tsiang's notice of the kingdom of
Broach (C. 640 A.D.). [411] He says "all their profit is from the sea"
and describes the country as salt and barren, which is still true of
large tracts in the west and twelve hundred years ago was probably
the condition of a much larger area than at present. Hiuen Tsiang
does not say that Broach was subject to any other kingdom, but it
is clear from the fact that Dadda bore the five great titles that
he was a mere feudatory. At this period the valuable port of Broach,
from which all their profit was made, was a prize fought for by all
the neighbouring powers. With the surrounding country of Láta, Broach
submitted to Pulakesi II. (A.D. 610-640): [412] it may afterwards have
fallen to the Málava kings, to whom in Hiuen Tsiang's time (A.D. 640)
both Khedá (K'ie-ch'a) and Ánandapura (Vadnagar) belonged; later it
was subject to Valabhi, as Dharasena IV. made a grant at Broach in
V.S. 330 (A.D. 649-50). [413]
Knowledge of the later Gurjjaras is derived exclusively from two
grants of Jayabhata III. dated respectively 456 (A.D. 704-5) and
486 (A.D. 734-5). [414] The later of these two grants is imperfect,
only the last plate having been preserved. The earlier grant of 456
(A.D. 704-5) shows that during the half century following the reign
of Dadda II. the dynasty had ceased to call themselves Gurjjaras,
and had adopted a Puránic pedigree traced from king Karna, a hero of
the Bhárata war. It also shows that from Dadda III. onward the family
were Saivas instead of sun-worshippers.
[Jayabhata II. C. 650-675 A.D.] The successor of Dadda II. was his
son Jayabhata II. who is described as a warlike prince, but of whom
no historical details are recorded.
[Dadda III. Báhusaháya, C. 675-700.] Jayabhata's son, Dadda
III. Báhusaháya, is described as waging wars with the great kings
of the east and of the west (probably Málava and Valabhi). He was
the first Saiva of the family, studied Manu's works, and strictly
enforced "the duties of the varnas or castes and of the ásramas
or Bráhman stages." It was probably to him that the Gurjjaras owed
their Puránic pedigree and their recognition as true Kshatriyas. Like
his predecessors, Dadda III. was not an independent ruler. He could
claim only the five great titles, though no hint is given who was his
suzerain. His immediate superior may have been Jayasimha the Chálukya,
who received the province of Láta from his brother Vikramáditya
(c. 669-680 A.D.) [415]
[Jayabhata III. c. 704-734 A.D.] The son and successor of Dadda
III. was Jayabhata III. whose two grants of 456 (A.D. 704-5) and 486
(A.D. 734-5) [416] must belong respectively to the beginning and
the end of his reign. He attained the five great titles, and was
therefore a feudatory, probably of the Chálukyas: but his title of
Mahásámantádhipati implies that he was a chief of importance. He
is praised in vague terms, but the only historical event mentioned
in his grants is a defeat of a lord of Valabhi, noted in the grant
of 486 (A.D. 734-5). The Valabhi king referred to must be either
Síláditya IV. (A.D. 691) or Síláditya V. (A.D. 722). During the
reign of Jayabhata III. took place the great Arab invasion which was
repulsed by Pulakesi Janásraya at Navsárí. [417] Like the kingdoms
named in the grant of Pulakesi, Broach must have suffered from this
raid. It is not specially mentioned probably because it formed part
of Pulakesi's territory.
After A.D. 734-5 no further mention occurs of the Gurjjaras of
Broach. Whether the dynasty was destroyed by the Arabs or by the
Gujarát Ráshtrakútas (A.D. 750) is not known. Later references to
Gurjjaras in Ráshtrakúta times refer to the Gurjjaras of Bhínmál not to
the Gurjjaras of Broach, who, about the time of Dadda III. (C. 675-700
A.D.), ceased to call themselves Gurjjaras.
A few words must be said regarding the three grants from Iláo, Umetá,
and Bagumrá (Ind. Ant. XIII. 116, VII. 61, and XVII. 183) as their
genuineness has been assumed by Dr. Bühler in his recent paper on
the Mahábhárata, in spite of Mr. Fleet's proof (Ind. Ant. XVIII. 19)
that their dates do not work out correctly.
Dr. Bhagvánlál's (Ind. Ant. XIII. 70) chief grounds for holding that
the Umetá and Iláo grants (the Bagumrá grant was unknown to him)
were forgeries were:
(1) Their close resemblance in palæography to one another and to
the forged grant of Dharasena II. of Valabhi dated Saka 400;
(2) That though they purport to belong to the fifth century they
bear the same writer's name as the Khedá grants of the seventh
century.
Further Mr. Fleet (Ind. Ant. XIII. 116) pointed out:
(3) That the description of Dadda I. in the Iláo and Umetá
grants agrees almost literally with that of Dadda II. in the
Khedá grants, and that where it differs the Khedá grants have
the better readings.
To these arguments Dr. Bühler has replied (Ind. Ant. XVII. 183):
(1) That though there is a resemblance between these grants and
that of Dharasena II., still it does not prove more than that the
forger of Dharasena's grant had one of the other grants before him;
(2) That, as the father's name of the writer is not given in the
Khedá grants, it cannot be assumed that he was the same person
as the writer of the Iláo and Umetá grants; and
(3) That genuine grants sometimes show that a description written
for one king is afterwards applied to another, and that good or
bad readings are no test of the age of a grant.
It may be admitted that Dr. Bühler has made it probable that the
suspected grants and the grant of Dharasena were not all written by
the same hand, and also that the coincidence in the writer's name is
not of much importance in itself. But the palæographical resemblance
between Dharasena's grant on the one hand and the doubtful Gurjjara
grants on the other is so close that they must have been written at
about the same time. As to the third point, the verbal agreement
between the doubtful grants on the one hand and the Khedá grants
on the other implies the existence of a continuous tradition in the
record office of the dynasty from the end of the fifth till near the
middle of the seventh century. But the Sankhedá grant of Nirihullaka
(Ep. Ind. II. 21) shows that towards the end of the sixth century the
lower Narbadá valley was occupied by jungle tribes who acknowledged
the supremacy of the Kalachuris. Is it reasonable to suppose that
after the first Gurjjara line was thus displaced, the restorers of the
dynasty should have had any memory of the forms in which the first line
drew up their grants? At any rate, if they had, they would also have
retained their original seal, which, as the analogy of the Valabhi
plates teaches us, would bear the founder's name. But we find that
the seal of the Khedá plates bears the name "Sámanta Dadda," who
can be no other than the "Sámanta Dadda" who ruled from C. 585-605
A.D. It follows that the Gurjjaras of the seventh century themselves
traced back their history in Broach no further than A.D. 585. Again,
it has been pointed out in the text that a passage in the description
of Dadda II. (A.D. 620-650) in the Khedá grants seems to refer to his
protection of the Valabhi king, so that the description must have been
written for him and not for the fifth century Dadda as Dr. Bühler's
theory requires.
These points coupled with Mr. Fleet's proof (Ind. Ant. XVIII. 91)
that the Saka dates do not work out correctly, may perhaps be
enough to show that none of these three grants can be relied upon as
genuine.--(A. M. T. J.)