1.
#Thread to clarify that Paramardi Chandella was *not* the father of Naikidevi.
A lone claim is made by AK Majumdar, contrast to almost all other historians on this matter. Let's look into its veracity.
#ItBegins #History #FactCheck
#Thread to clarify that Paramardi Chandella was *not* the father of Naikidevi.
A lone claim is made by AK Majumdar, contrast to almost all other historians on this matter. Let's look into its veracity.
#ItBegins #History #FactCheck
2.
The claim rests on the perceived similarity in the names of battlefield in the Chandella inscription of Vikram Samvat (VS) 1261 (1204-5 CE), more accurately dated as, of 6th May 1205.
Chandellas ruled in the Bundelkhand region (earlier called Jejakabhukti)
The claim rests on the perceived similarity in the names of battlefield in the Chandella inscription of Vikram Samvat (VS) 1261 (1204-5 CE), more accurately dated as, of 6th May 1205.
Chandellas ruled in the Bundelkhand region (earlier called Jejakabhukti)
3.
The claim is that Paramardi Chandella was the father of Naikidevi.
1165/6 CE: Paramardi Chandella started his rule at very young age of ~5 years-old.
This is corroborated in the Ajaygarh Inscription as well, where he's called a 'bālopi netā' (v. young leader)
The claim is that Paramardi Chandella was the father of Naikidevi.
1165/6 CE: Paramardi Chandella started his rule at very young age of ~5 years-old.
This is corroborated in the Ajaygarh Inscription as well, where he's called a 'bālopi netā' (v. young leader)
4.
1171/2 CE: The reign of Ajayapal Solanki, whose queen was Naikidevi, started.
1175 CE: Ajayapal Solanki dies, his son Mularaja II ascends as a minor. Naikidevi becomes the queen regent.
1178 CE: Battle of Gāḍāraghaṭṭa b/w Naikidevi & Md. of Ghor; Naikidevi victorious!
1171/2 CE: The reign of Ajayapal Solanki, whose queen was Naikidevi, started.
1175 CE: Ajayapal Solanki dies, his son Mularaja II ascends as a minor. Naikidevi becomes the queen regent.
1178 CE: Battle of Gāḍāraghaṭṭa b/w Naikidevi & Md. of Ghor; Naikidevi victorious!
5.
So, as per the original claim, Paramardi Chandella had a *direct grandson* through his daughter at the age of ~12-15!
It's hardly a believable story: That a 15-year-old boy has a *daughter of marriageable age* & she matured enough to give birth to a boy in this time interval!
So, as per the original claim, Paramardi Chandella had a *direct grandson* through his daughter at the age of ~12-15!
It's hardly a believable story: That a 15-year-old boy has a *daughter of marriageable age* & she matured enough to give birth to a boy in this time interval!
6.
The Chandella inscription referred by AK Majumdar, is of 6th May 1205, when Trailokyavarman was the Chandella ruler. He was successor of Paramardi Chandella.
The Chandella inscription referred by AK Majumdar, is of 6th May 1205, when Trailokyavarman was the Chandella ruler. He was successor of Paramardi Chandella.
7.
The inscription records Trailokyavarman granting a village Vadavada, to the son of a battle-martyr, Rauta Samanta, the son of Rauta Pape. Rauta Pape was killed in battle w/ Turushkas at Kakadadaha.
The village grant was done for the purpose of family maintenance.
The inscription records Trailokyavarman granting a village Vadavada, to the son of a battle-martyr, Rauta Samanta, the son of Rauta Pape. Rauta Pape was killed in battle w/ Turushkas at Kakadadaha.
The village grant was done for the purpose of family maintenance.
8.
The claimant draws similarity between 'Kakaḍādaha' & 'Gāḍāraghaṭṭa'.
However, the location of Kakaḍādaha differs significantly with that of Naikidevi's battle (Gāḍāraghaṭṭa) with Muhammad of Ghor.
Pic 2: G = Gāḍāraghaṭṭa; C = Chandella inscription location
The claimant draws similarity between 'Kakaḍādaha' & 'Gāḍāraghaṭṭa'.
However, the location of Kakaḍādaha differs significantly with that of Naikidevi's battle (Gāḍāraghaṭṭa) with Muhammad of Ghor.
Pic 2: G = Gāḍāraghaṭṭa; C = Chandella inscription location
9.
Now, let's see the timeline of the battle vs Md of Ghor, & the village-grant by Trailokyavarman:-
1178: Battle vs Md of Ghor
1205: Village Grant for family maintenance.
*27 Years* difference in these events!! How come a compensation is granted almost 3 decades later?!
Now, let's see the timeline of the battle vs Md of Ghor, & the village-grant by Trailokyavarman:-
1178: Battle vs Md of Ghor
1205: Village Grant for family maintenance.
*27 Years* difference in these events!! How come a compensation is granted almost 3 decades later?!
10.
Hence, historians have suggested, that the battle referred in the Chandella inscription might be one of the engagements, related to Qutbuddin Aibak's conflict with the Chandellas during *1202-3 CE*.
This date is much closer to that of the village-grant to the martyr's family
Hence, historians have suggested, that the battle referred in the Chandella inscription might be one of the engagements, related to Qutbuddin Aibak's conflict with the Chandellas during *1202-3 CE*.
This date is much closer to that of the village-grant to the martyr's family
11.
Thus, the Chandella inscription *cannot* support one in making connection of the Chandella dynasty of Jejakabhukti, & Naikidevi.
Since this inscription was the only one supporting that claim, it's safe to conclude, that **Naikidevi was NOT daughter of Paramardi Chandella**
Thus, the Chandella inscription *cannot* support one in making connection of the Chandella dynasty of Jejakabhukti, & Naikidevi.
Since this inscription was the only one supporting that claim, it's safe to conclude, that **Naikidevi was NOT daughter of Paramardi Chandella**
Loading suggestions...