Mularaja
[5] Based on this, historian Asoke Majumdar believes that Suri's legendary account seems to be at least partially accurate: Rama and his successors appear to be historical figures.
V. V. Mirashi speculated that this place might have been situated on the banks of the river Madhuveni (present-day Mahuwar), which is a tributary of Betwa.
This absurdity, coupled with other evidence, has prompted some scholars such as Georg Bühler to dismiss Merutunga's legend as unhistorical.
However, Asoke Majumdar proposed that he was indeed a relative of the king, based on the following facts: The Vadnagar inscription as well as the writings of Hemachandra suggest that Mularaja reduced the tax burden on the citizens.
Therefore, Majumdar theorizes that Mularaja indeed murdered his uncle and then consolidated power with 'soft' measures such as reduced tax burden and sharing of wealth.
The Vadnagar prashasti inscription of his descendant Kumarapala states that he took the Chapotkata princes captive, took their fortune for his own enjoyment, and became popular among his subjects because of excessively light taxation.
[11] According to Bühler, such changes to the royal household would have not happened, if Mularaja had ascended the throne by the right of succession after the death of the last Chapotkata king.
[10] However, historian Asoke Majumdar proposed that he was indeed a relative of the king, based on the following facts: The Vadnagar inscription as well as the writings of Hemachandra suggest that Mularaja reduced the tax burden on the citizens.
Therefore, Majumdar theorizes that Mularaja indeed murdered his uncle and then consolidated power with 'soft' measures such as reduced tax burden and sharing of wealth.
[9] At the time of his ascension, Mūlarāja's kingdom was probably limited to the territory called Sarasvata-mandala, which included present-day Mehsana, Radhanpur, and Palanpur.
In the morning, Mūlarāja consulted his ministers Jambaka and Jehula, as he was apprehensive of causing troubles to the pilgrims who visited Prabhasa in Saurashtra.
[14] Jehula told Mūlarāja that Graharipu was a tyrant who tortured pilgrims and indulged in vices such as eating flesh, drinking wine and hunting deer on Mt.
When the Chalukya army reached the Jambumāli forest, Grāharipu attempted a peaceful resolution by sending his messenger, who asked Mūlarāja to retreat, stating that there was no enmity between the two kings.
However, Mūlarāja refused to do so, declaring that Mularaja was a despicable person whose vices could be attributed to he being the son of a mleccha woma.
[15] His allies included Medas (Bhillas according to Abhayatilaka-Gaṇi), his friend Lakṣa (who had freed Kaccha from the Turuṣkas), and a king named Sindhurāja.
He may be same as Lākhā Phulāni, whom the Jāḍejā princes of Kutch count among their ancestors, and whom the bardic chronicles variously date between 841 and 1144 CE.
[19] Historian Asoke Majumdar theorizes that Mularaja attacked Graharipu on "some flimsy pretext", as Mahadeva's-order-in-a-dream was a popular device used by Sanskrit authors to justify the otherwise inexcusable actions of their heroes.
Mularaja's descendants fought against the kings of Kachchha and Saurashtra, so it appears that he managed to annex some parts of these kingdoms, but could not completely subjugate them.
[22] According to Merutuṅga, Mūlarāja's ministers advised him to take shelter in the Kanthā-durga fort until Navarātri, when Vigraharāja would depart to perform the traditional worship of his family deity, and then attack Bārapa.
[21] Pṛthvīrāja Vijaya, which was composed under Cāhamāna patronage, states that Vigraharāja forced Mūlarāja to take shelter in Kanthā-durga, and advanced as far as Bhṛgukaccha (modern Bharuch), where he built a temple dedicated to the goddess Aśapuri.
[23] Historian Dasharatha Sharma also believes that the conflict ended with some advantage for Vigraharāja, who allied with Bārapa and helped him achieve independence.
[24] Historian Asoke Kumar Majumdar theorizes that Mūlarāja may have paid Vigraharāja money to win him over, and the two kings may have then jointly marched up to Bhṛgukaccha against Bārapa.
[7] Surathotsava of Someshvara, a thirteenth century Brahmana, describes Mularaja being consecrated as king through the performance of a Vedic Vajapeya sacrifice.
The Mulavastika temple in Patan constructed by Mularaja is also mentioned in an Digambara Jain inscription dated Samvat 1250s of Bhima II rule.
The older part of Adinath temple at Vadnagar and ruins of Khokhra-dera at Kanthkot were built during later period of his reign.
