[Bhíma II. A.D. 1179-1242.] Múlarája II. was succeeded by Bhíma II. The relationship of the two is not clearly established. Mr. Forbes makes Bhíma the younger brother of Ajayapála. But it appears from the Kírtikaumudí and the Sukritasankírtana that Bhíma was the younger brother of Múlarája. The Sukritasankírtana after concluding the account of Múlarája, [627] calls Bhíma 'asya bandhu' 'his brother,' and the Kírtikaumudí, after mentioning the death of Múlarája, says that Bhíma his younger brother 'anujanmásya' became king. [628] Múlarája we know came to the throne as a child. Of Bhíma also the Kírtikaumudí says that he came to the throne while still in his childhood, and this agrees with the statements that he was the younger brother of Múlarája. Bhíma probably came to the throne A.D. 1178 (S. 1234). There is no doubt he was reigning in A.D. 1179 (S. 1235), as an inscription in the deserted village of Kerálu near Bálmer of Anahilaváda dated A.D. 1179 (S. 1235) states that it was written 'in the triumphant reign of the illustrious Bhímadeva.' [629] A further proof of his reigning in A.D. 1179 (S. 1235) and of his being a minor at that time is given in the following passage from the Tabakát-i-Násirí: In A.D. 1178 (Hijri 574) the Ráí of Nahrwálá Bhímdeo, was a minor, but he had a large army and many elephants. In the day of battle the Muhammadans were defeated and the Sultán was compelled to retreat. [630] Merutunga says that Bhíma reigned from A.D. 1179 (S. 1235) for sixty-three years that is up to A.D. 1242 (S. 1298), and this is borne out by a copperplate of Bhíma which bears date A.D. 1240 (S. 1296 [631] Márgha Vadi 14th Sunday [632]). Bhíma was nicknamed Bholo the Simpleton. The chroniclers of this period mention only the Vághelás and almost pass over Bhíma. The author of the Kírtikaumudí says 'the kingdom of the young ruler was gradually divided among powerful ministers and provincial chiefs'; and according to the Sukritasankírtana 'Bhíma felt great anxiety on account of the chiefs who had forcibly eaten away portions of the kingdom.' It appears that during the minority, when the central authority was weak, the kingdom was divided among nobles and feudatories, and that Bhíma proved too weak a ruler to restore the kingly power. Manuscripts and copperplates show that Bhímadeva was ruling at Anahilaváda in S. 1247, 1251, 1261, 1263, and 1264, [633] and copperplates dated S. 1283, 1288, 1295, and 1296 have also been found. Though Bhíma in name enjoyed a long unbroken reign the verses quoted above show that power rested not with the king but with the nobles. It appears from an inscription that in A.D. 1224 (S. 1280) a Chálukya noble named Jayantasimha was supreme at Anahilaváda though he mentions Bhíma and his predecessors with honour and respect. [634]