Note 46 — BHINMÁL.

The Rádhanpur grant (a.d. 807–8) further states that when the Gurjjara saw Govinda III. approaching, he fled in fear to some unknown hiding-place. This probably means no more than that Vatsarája did not oppose Govinda in his march to the Vindhyas. The next reference is in the Baroda grant of Karka II. of Gujarát who boasts that his father Indra (c. 810 a.d.) alone caused the leader of the Gurjjara lords to flee. Karka adds that he himself, for the purpose of protecting Málava, “who had been struck down,” made his arm the door-bar of the country of Gurjjareśvara, who “had become evilly inflamed” by the conquest of Gauḍa and Vanga.46 It is difficult to avoid supposing that we have here a reference to the Paramára conquest of Málwa and that Karka checked the southward march of the victorious army. For some years no further mention has been traced of the Gurjjaras. But in a.d. 851 the Arab merchant Sulaiman states47 that the king of Juzr was one of the kings “around” the Balhára, that is the Ráshṭrakúṭa, and that he was very hostile to the Musalmáns, which is not surprising, considering how his kingdom was exposed to the Arab raids from Sindh. Dhruva III. of Broach, in his Bagumrá grant of a.d. 86748 speaks of “the host of the powerful Gurjjaras” as one of the dangerous enemies he had to fear. About a.d. 890 a Gurjjara chief named Alakhána ceded Takkadeśa in the Panjáb to Śankaravarmman of Kashmir.49 But as Alakhána was a vassal of Lalliya, the Śáhi of Ohind near Swát, this event did not affect the Bhínmál empire. To about a.d. 900 belongs the notice of the Ráshṭrakúṭa Kṛishṇa II. in the Deoli and Navsári grants50 where he is stated to have frightened the Gurjjaras, destroyed the pride of Láṭa, and deprived the coast people of sleep. His fights with the Gurjjaras are compared to the storms of the rainy season, implying that while the relations of the two empires continued hostile, neither was able to gain any decisive advantage over the other. To this same period belongs Ibn Khurdádba’s (a.d. 912) statement51 that the king of Juzr was the fourth Appendix III. Bhinmál. History. in rank of the kings of India and that the Tátariya dirhams were used in his country. In connection with the latter point it is worth noting that the pattávali of the Upakeśagaccha52 gives a story which distinctly connects the origin of the Gadhia coinage with Bhínmál.53 The grant of Dharaṇívaráha, the Chápa chief of Vadhván, dated a.d. 91454 gives us the name of his overlord Mahipála, who, as already pointed out, must be identified with the Mahipála who was defeated by the Karnátak king Narasiṃha.55 The fact that Vadhván was a Chápa dependency implies that Aṇahilaváḍa was one also. We may in fact conclude that throughout the Chávaḍá period Aṇahilaváḍa was a mere feudatory of Bhínmál, a fact which would account for the obscurities and contradictions of Chávaḍá history.