Note 9 — Chapter II · THE CHAULUKYAS OR SOLAṄKIS (a.d. 961–1242)

One of the chief times of peril in Lavaṇaprasáda’s reign was the joint attack of the Devagiri Yádava Singhaṇa or Sinhaṇa from the south and of four Márwár chiefs from the north. Lavaṇaprasáda and his son Víradhavala in joint command marched south to meet Singhaṇa at Broach. While at Broach the Vághelás’ position was made still more critical by the desertion of the Godhraha or Godhrá chief to Málwa and of the Láṭa or south Gujarát chief to Singhaṇa. Still Lavaṇaprasáda pressed on, attacked Singhaṇa, and gave him so crushing a defeat, that, though Lavaṇaprasáda had almost at once to turn north to meet the Málwa army, Singhaṇa retired without causing further trouble.9 Someśvara gives no reason for Singhaṇa’s withdrawal beyond the remark ‘Deer do not follow the lion’s path even when the lion has left it.’ The true reason is supplied by a Manuscript called Forms of Treaties.10 The details of a treaty between Sinhaṇa and Lavaṇaprasáda under date Saṃvat 1288 (a.d. 1232) included among the Forms seem to show that the reason why Sinhaṇa did not advance was that Lavaṇaprasáda and his son submitted and concluded an alliance.11 In this copy of the treaty Siṇhaṇadeva is called the great king of kings or paramount sovereign Mahárájádhirája, while Lavaṇaprasáda, Sanskritised into Lavaṇyáprasáda is called a Rána and a tributary chief Mahámandaleśvara. The place where the treaty was concluded Chapter III. The Vághelás, a.d. 1219–1304 Lavaṇaprasáda, a.d. 1200–1233. is styled “the victorious camp,” and the date is Monday the fullmoon of Vaiśákha in the year Saṃvat 1288 (a.d. 1232). The provisions are that, as before, each of the belligerents should confine himself to his own territory; neither of them should invade the possessions of the other; if a powerful enemy attacked either of them, they should jointly oppose him; if only a hostile general led the attack, troops should be sent against him; and if from the country of either any noble fled into the territory of the other taking with him anything of value he should not be allowed harbourage and all valuables in the refugee’s possession should be restored.12 His good fortune went with Lavaṇaprasáda in his attack on the Márwár chiefs whom he forced to retire. Meanwhile Śankha13 who is described as the son of the ruler of Sindh but who seems to have held territory in Broach, raised a claim to Cambay and promised Vastupála Lavaṇaprasáda’s governor, that, if Vastupála declared in his favour14, he would be continued in his government. Vastupála rejected Śankha’s overtures, met him in battle outside of Cambay, and forced him to retire. In honour of Vastupála’s victory the people of Cambay held a great festival when Vastupála passed in state through the city to the shrine of the goddess Ekalla Víra outside of the town.15