Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

[admin]

Jadunath Sarkar
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/30/21

That the author of RC did not entertain a favourable opinion about Mahipala II is quite clear from the way in which he describes these two incidents, and specially from the words and phrases used in connection with them to describe the king’s character. It is, however, noteworthy, that while the episode of the great rebellion and the part played by the king therein are alluded to merely by way of a casual reference, in short detached phrases, unintelligible without the help of the commentary, the imprisonment of Ramapala is described at length in six verses (I. 32-7). This is an important indication that the author’s judgment of Mahipala was influenced mainly by the latter event. In other words, he considered Mahipala far more blameworthy for his conduct towards Ramapala than for the folly which led to the loss of Varendra. If we remember the open and professed partisanship of Sandhyakaranandi for his hero Ramapala, we should be cautious in accepting, at its face value, both his judgment of the king and his version of the cause and nature of the imprisonment of Ramapala. As regards the other incident which cost Mahipala his life and throne, if the commentator's view is to be accepted, the gravamen of the charge brought by the author against Mahipala consists of his lack of wisdom and good policy (aniti, durnnaya) and an inordinate passion for war (yuddha-vyasana) which led him to undertake a rash military enterprise in spite of the advice of his ministers to the contrary. Apart from these two specific incidents the RC contains only one general reference to the character of Mahipala, in which he is described as ‘rajapravara’ which the commentator explains as nrpatisrestha or excellent king (I. 29). This passing reference, unconnected with any special incident, seems to indicate that Sandhyakaranandi did not fail to appreciate the general merits of Mahipala as a king, although he disapproved of his conduct towards his brothers.

But whatever view we might take of the attitude of the author towards Mahipala, there is absolutely no justification for the following statement made by MM. Sastri:

“Mahipala by his impolitic acts incurred the displeasure of his subjects ..... The Kaivartas were smarting under oppression of the king. Bhima, the son of Rudoka, taking advantage of the popular discontent, led his Kaivarta subjects to rebellion.” (p. 13)

There is not a word in RC to show that Mahipala incurred the displeasure of his subjects by his impolitic acts or that there was a general popular discontent against him. It is an amazing invention to say that “the Kaivartas were smarting under oppression of the king," for the RC does not contain a single word which can even remotely lead to such a belief. It is a travesty of facts to hold that Bhima led his Kaivarta subjects (?) to rebellion. The rebellion was led by a number of feudal vassals and there is no evidence to show that they belonged solely, or even primarily, to the Kaivarta caste. There is again nothing to show that Bhima had anything to do with the rebellion, far less that he led it. Such an assumption seems to be absurd in view of the fact that he was the third king in succession after Divya who occupied the throne of Varendra after the rebellion. There is again nothing in RC to show that during the reign of Mahipala the Kaivartas formed a distinct political entity under Divya or Bhima, so that they might be regarded as the subjects of the latter.

This tissue of misstatements, unsupported by anything in the text of RC, is responsible for a general belief that Mahipala was an oppressive king, and has even led sober historians to misjudge his character and misconstrue the events of his reign. A popular myth has been sedulously built up to the effect that there was a general rising of people which cost Mahipala his life and throne, that it was merely a popular reaction against the oppression and wickedness of the king, and that, far from being rebellious in character, it was an assertion of the people’s right to dethrone a bad and unpopular king and elect a popular chief in his place. In other words, in fighting and killing Mahipala the people of Varendra were inspired by the noblest motive of saving the country from his tyranny and anarchy. Some even proceeded so far as to say that this act was followed by a general election of Divya as the king of Varendra, and a great historian has compared the whole episode with that which led to the election of Gopala, the founder of the Pala dynasty, to the throne of Bengal.1 [ A movement has been set on foot by a section of the Kaivarta or Mahisya community in Bengal to perpetuate the memory of Divya, on the basis of the view-points noted above. They refuse to regard him as a rebel and hold him up as a great hero called to the throne by the people of Varendra to save it from the oppressions of Mahipala. An annual ceremony — Divya-smriti-utsava -- is organized by them and the speeches, made on these occasions by eminent historians like Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Rai Bahadur Rama Prasad Chanda, and Dr. Upendranath Ghoshal [1886-1969; President of The Asiatic Society of Bengal 1963-1964; Author of: Studies in Indian history and culture (1957); A History of Hindu Political Theories: From the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. (1927); A History of Indian Public Life (1966); Ancient Indian culture in Afghanistan (1928); Contributions to the history of the Hindu revenue system (1929); The agrarian syste in ancient India (1930)] who presided over the function seek to support the popular views. On the other hand attempts have been made to show that these popular views are not supported by the statements in Ramacarita (cf. Bharatavarsa, 1342, pp. 18 ff.).]

This is not the proper place or occasion to criticise these views at length, or to refer to many other important conclusions which have been drawn from MM. Sastri’s sketch of the life and character of Mahipala. But in view of the deep-rooted prejudices and errors which are still current in spite of the exposition of the unwarranted character of MM. Sastri’s interpretation, it is necessary to draw attention to what is really stated in RC about the great rebellion and the part played by Divya. The author of RC did not regard the rising in any other light than a dire calamity which enveloped the kingdom in darkness (I. 22). He describes it as anika dharma-viplava or the unholy or unfortunate civil revolution (1. 24), bhavasya apadam or the calamity of the world, and damaram which the commentator explains as upaplava or disturbance (I. 27). Further, the latter describes it as merely a rebellion of feudal vassals (ananta-samanta-cakra), and not a word is said about its popular character. There is even no indication that the rebels belonged to Varendra or that the encounter between Mahipala and the rebels took place within that province. Such revolts were not uncommon in different parts of the Pala kingdom in those days. Similar revolts placed in power the Kamboja chiefs in Varendra and Radha, and the family of Sudraka in Gaya district.1 [For a detailed discussion of this point and a view of Divya’s rebellion in its true perspective cf. Dr. R C. Majumdar’s article ‘The Revolt of Divvoka against Mahipala II and other revolts in Bengal’ in Dacca University Studies Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 125 ff.]

There is not a word in RC to the effect that Divya2 [The name is written variously in RC as Divya (1. 38), Divvoka (1. 38-39 commentary), and Divoka (I. 31 commentary).] was the leader of a popular rebellion, far less that he was elected as king by the people. As a matter of fact his name is not associated in any way even with the fight between Mahipala and his rebellious chiefs (milit-ananta-samanta-cakra) referred to in Verse I. 31. The RC only tells us that “Ramapala’s beautiful fatherland (Varendri) was occupied by his enemy named Divya, an (officer) sharing royal fortune, who rose to a high position, (but) who took to fraudulent practice as a vow” (I. 38). The account given in RC is not incompatible with the view that Mahipala met with a disastrous defeat in an encounter with some rebellious vassals in or outside Varendra, and Divya took advantage of it to seize the throne for himself. That the author of RC did not entertain any favourable view of the character and policy of Divya is clear from the two adjectives applied to him, viz., dasyu and upadhivrati. The commentator says ‘dasyuna satruna tadbhavapannatvat.’ It is obvious that the commentator means that the term dasyu refers to the enemy (Divya) as he had assumed the character of a dasyu (enemy). As to the other expression upadhivrati, the commentator first explains vrata as ‘something which is undertaken as an imperative duty,’ and then adds ‘chadmani vrati.’ In other words, Divya performed an act on the plea that it was an imperative duty, but this was a merely false pretension. In any case the two words in the text ‘dasyu’ and ‘upadhi’ cannot be taken by any stretch of imagination to imply any good or noble trait in his character.

-- The Ramacaritam of Sandhyakaranandin, by Dr. R. C. Majumdar, M.A., Ph.D., Dr. Radhagovinda Basak, M.A., Ph.D., and Pandit Nanigopal Banerji, Kavyatirtha

Sir Jadunath Sarkar
Jadunath Sarkar, c. 1926[1]
Born: 10 December 1870, Karachmaria, Singra, Natore, British India
Died: 19 May 1958 (aged 87), Calcutta, India
Occupation: Historian
Spouse(s): Lady Kadambini Sarkar

Sir Jadunath Sarkar CIE (10 December 1870 – 19 May 1958) was a prominent Indian historian especially of the Mughal dynasty.

Academic career

Sarkar was born in Karachmaria village in Natore, Bengal to Rajkumar Sarkar, the local Zamindar on 10 December 1870.[2] In 1891, he graduated in English from Presidency College, Calcutta.[2] In 1892, he topped the Master of Arts examination, in English at Calcutta University and in 1897, he received the Premchand-Roychand Scholarship.[2]

In 1893, he was inducted as a faculty of English literature at Ripon College, Calcutta (later renamed Surendranath College).[2] In 1898, he was appointed at Presidency College, Calcutta after getting selected in the Provincial Education Services.[2] In between, from 1917 to 1919, he taught Modern Indian History in Benaras Hindu University and from 1919–1923, both English and History, at Ravenshaw College, Cuttack.[2] In 1923, he became an honorary member of the Royal Asiatic Society of London. In August 1926, he was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University. In 1928, he joined as Sir W. Meyer Lecturer in Madras University.

Historiography

Reception

Sarkar's works faded out of public memory, with the increasing advent of Marxist and postcolonial schools of historiography.[3]

Academically, Jos J. L. Gommans compares Sarkar's work with those of the Aligarh historians, noting that while the historians from the Aligarh worked mainly on the mansabdari system and gunpowder technology in the Mughal Empire, Sarkar concentrated on military tactics and sieges.[4]

Aligarh Muslim University (abbreviated as AMU) is a public central university in Aligarh, India, which was originally established by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1875. Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College became Aligarh Muslim University in 1920, following the Aligarh Muslim University Act...

The university was established as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, starting functioning on 24 May 1875. The movement associated with Syed Ahmad Khan and the college came to be known as the Aligarh Movement, which pushed to realise the need for establishing a modern education system for the Indian Muslim populace. He considered competence in English and Western sciences necessary skills for maintaining Muslims' political influence. Khan's vision for the college was based on his visit to Oxford University and Cambridge University, and he wanted to establish an education system similar to the British model.

A committee was formed by the name of foundation of Muslim College and asked people to fund generously. Then Viceroy and Governor General of India, Thomas Baring gave a donation of ₹10,000 while the Lt. Governor of the North Western Provinces contributed ₹1,000, and by March 1874 funds for the college stood at ₹1,53,920 and 8 ana. Maharao Raja Mahamdar Singh Mahamder Bahadur of Patiala contributed ₹58,000 while Raja Shambhu Narayan of Benaras donated ₹60,000. Donations also came in from the Maharaja of Vizianagaram as well. The college was initially affiliated to the University of Calcutta for the matriculate examination but became an affiliate of Allahabad University in 1885. The 7th Nizam of Hyderabad, HEH Mir Osman Ali Khan made a remarkable donation of Rupees 5 Lakh to this institution in the year 1918...

Before 1939, faculty members and students supported an all-India nationalist movement but after 1939, political sentiment shifted towards support for a Muslim separatist movement. Students and faculty members supported Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the university came to be a center of the Pakistan Movement.

Dr. Sheikh Abdullah ("Papa Mian") is the founder of the women's college of Aligarh Muslim University and had pressed for women's education, writing articles while also publishing a monthly women's magazine, Khatoon. To start the college for women, he had led a delegation to the Lt. Governor of the United Provinces while also writing a proposal to Sultan Jahan, Begum of Bhopal. Begum Jahan had allocated a grant of ₹ 100 per month for the education of women. On 19 October 1906, he successfully started a school for girls with five students and one teacher at a rented property in Aligarh. The foundation stone for the girls' hostel was laid by him and his wife, Waheed Jahan Begum ("Ala Bi") after struggles on 7 November 1911. Later, a high school was established in 1921, gaining the status of an intermediate college in 1922, finally becoming a constituent of the Aligarh Muslim University as an undergraduate college in 1937. Later, Dr. Abdullah's daughters also served as principals of the women's college. One of his daughters was Mumtaz Jahan Haider, during whose tenure as principal, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad had visited the university and offered a grant of ₹9,00,000. She was involved in the establishment of the Women's College, organised various extracurricular events, and reasserted the importance of education for Muslim women.

-- Aligarh Muslim University, by Wikipedia

He has been called the "greatest Indian historian of his time" and one of the greatest in the world, whose erudite works "have established a tradition of honest and scholarly historiography" by E. Sreedharan.[5] He has also been compared with Theodor Mommsen and Leopold von Ranke.[5]

Honors

Sarkar was honored by Britain with a Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire CIE and knighted in the 1929 Birthday Honours list.[6] He was invested with his knighthood at Simla by the acting Viceroy, Lord Goschen, on 22 August 1929.[7]

Legacy

The Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, an autonomous research center, has been established in his house, which was donated to the state government by Sarkar's wife. CSSC also houses the Jadunath Bhavan Museum and Resource Centre, a museum-cum-archive of primary sources.[8]

List of works

Published works by Sarkar include:

• Economics of British India (1900)
• The India of Aurangzib (1901)
• Anecdotes of Aurangzib (1912)
• History of Aurangzib (in 5 volumes), (1912–24)
• Chaitanya's pilgrimages and teachings, from his contemporary Bengali biography, the Chaitanya-charit-amrita: Madhya-lila (translation from the Bengali original by Krishnadasa Kaviraja, 1913)

Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (a.k.a. Mahāprabhu or "Great Lord") was a 15th century Indian saint, considered God, and founder of Achintya Bheda Abheda. Devotees consider him an incarnation of Krishna. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's mode of worshipping Krishna with ecstatic song and dance had a profound effect on Vaishnavism in Bengal. He was also the chief proponent of the Vedantic philosophy of Achintya Bheda Abheda. Mahaprabhu founded Gaudiya Vaishnavism (a.k.a. Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya). He expounded Bhakti yoga and popularized the chanting of the Hare Krishna Maha-mantra.He composed the Shikshashtakam (eight devotional prayers).

He is sometimes called Gauranga or Gaura due to his molten gold like complexion. His birthday is celebrated as Gaura-purnima. He is also called Nimai due to him being born underneath a Neem tree.

-- Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, by Wikipedia

• Shivaji and his Times (1919)

Shivaji Bhonsale I ( c. 1627 / February 19, 1630 – April 3, 1680) was an Indian ruler and a member of the Bhonsle Maratha clan. Shivaji carved out an enclave from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur that formed the genesis of the Maratha Empire. In 1674, he was formally crowned the Chhatrapati (emperor) of his realm at Raigad.

Over the course of his life, Shivaji engaged in both alliances and hostilities with the Mughal Empire, the Sultanate of Golkonda and the Sultanate of Bijapur, as well as with European colonial powers. Shivaji's military forces expanded the Maratha sphere of influence, capturing and building forts, and forming a Maratha navy. Shivaji established a competent and progressive civil rule with well-structured administrative organisations. He revived ancient Hindu political traditions and court conventions and promoted the usage of the Marathi language.

Shivaji's legacy was to vary by observer and time, but nearly two centuries after his death, he began to take on increased importance with the emergence of the Indian independence movement, as many Indian nationalists elevated him as a proto-nationalist and hero of the Hindus.

-- Shivaji, by Wikipedia

• Studies in Mughal India (1919)[9]
• Mughal Administration (1920)[9]
• Nadir Shah in India (1922)
• Later Mughals by William Irvine (in 2 volumes), (edited by Jadunath Sarkar, 1922)
• India through the ages (1928)
• A Short History of Aurangzib (1930)
• The Fall of the Mughal Empire (in 4 volumes), (1932–38)
• Studies in Aurangzib's reign (1933)
• The House of Shivaji (1940)
• The History of Bengal (in 2 volumes), (1943–1948)
• Maāsir-i-ʻĀlamgiri: a history of the emperor Aurangzib-ʻl̀amgir (translation from the Persian original by Muḥammad Sāqī Mustaʻidd Khān, 1947)[10]
• Military History of India (1960)
• A History of Jaipur, c. 1503-1938 (1984)[11]
• A History Of Dasnami Naga Sanyasis

Dashanami (IAST Daśanāmi Saṃpradāya "Tradition of Ten Names"), also known as the Order of Swamis, is a Hindu monastic tradition of "single-staff renunciation" (ēka daṇḍi saṃnyāsī) generally associated with the Vedanta tradition and organized in its present form by 5th-century BCE theologian Adi Shankara.

A swami, as the monk is called, is a renunciate who seeks to achieve spiritual union with the swa (Self). In formally renouncing the world, he or she generally wears ochre, saffron or orange-colored robes as a symbol of non-attachment to worldly desires, and may choose to roam independently or join an ashram or other spiritual organizations, typically in an ideal of selfless service. Upon initiation, which can only be done by another existing Swami, the renunciate receives a new name (usually ending in ananda, meaning 'supreme bliss') and takes a title which formalizes his connection with one of the ten subdivisions of the Swami Order. A swami's name has a dual significance, representing the attainment of supreme bliss through some divine quality or state (i.e. love, wisdom, service, yoga), and through a harmony with the infinite vastness of nature, expressed in one of the ten subdivision names: Giri (mountain), Puri (tract), Bhāratī (land), Vana (forest), Āraṇya (forest), Sagara (sea), Āśrama (spiritual exertion), Sarasvatī (wisdom of nature), Tīrtha (place of pilgrimage), and Parvata (mountain). A swami is not necessarily a yogi, although many swamis can and do practice yoga as a means of spiritual liberation; experienced swamis may also take disciples.

Dashanami Sannyāsins are associated mainly with the four maṭhas, established in four corners of India by Shankara himself; however, the association of the Dasanāmis with the Shankara maṭhas remained nominal. The early swamis, elevated into the order as disciples of Shankara, were sannyāsins who embraced sannyas either after marriage or without getting married...


Naga Sadhu performing ritual bath at Sangam during Prayagraj Ardh Kumbhmela 2007

In the 16th century, Madhusudana Saraswati of Bengal organised a section of the Naga (naked) tradition of armed sannyasis in order to protect Hindus from the tyranny of the Mughal rulers. These are also called Goswami, Gusain, Gussain, Gosain, Gossain, Gosine, Gosavi, Sannyāsi.

Warrior-ascetics could be found in Hinduism from at least the 1500s and as late as the 1700s, although tradition attributes their creation to Sankaracharya.

Some examples of Akhara currently are the Juna Akhara of the Dashanami Naga, Niranjani Akhara, Anand Akhara, Atal Akhara, Awahan Akhara, Agni Akhara and Nirmal Panchayati Akhara at Allahabad. Each akhara is divided into sub-branches and traditions. An example is the Dattatreya Akhara (Ujjain) of the naked sadhus of Juna Naga establishment.

The naga sadhus generally remain in the ambit of non-violence presently, though some sections are also known to practice the sport of Indian wrestling. The Dasanāmi sannyāsins practice the Vedic and yogic Yama principles of ahimsā (non-violence), satya (truth), asteya (non-stealing), aparigraha (non-covetousness) and brahmacārya (celibacy / moderation).

The naga sadhus are prominent at Kumbh mela, where the order in which they enter the water is fixed by tradition. After the Juna akhara, the Niranjani and Mahanirvani Akhara proceed to their bath. Ramakrishna Math Sevashram are almost the last in the procession.

-- Dashanami Sampradaya, by Wikipedia

References

1. Chakrabarty 2015, p. ii.
2. "Sarkar, Jadunath - Banglapedia". en.banglapedia.org. Retrieved 30 November 2019.
3. Kaushik Roy (2004). India's Historic Battles: From Alexander the Great to Kargil. Orient Blackswan. p. 10. ISBN 978-81-7824-109-8.
4. Jos J. L. Gommans (2002). Mughal Warfare: Indian Frontiers and Highroads to Empire, 1500-1700. Psychology Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-415-23989-9.
5. A Textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000, E. Sreedharan, p. 448
6. The London Gazette, 3 June 1929
7. "Viewing Page 6245 of Issue 33539". London-gazette.co.uk. 1 October 1929. Retrieved 26 March2014.
8. "In the memory of Jadunath Sarkar". The Telegraph. Retrieved 30 November 2019.
9. Moreland, W. H. (July 1921). "Studies in Mughal India by Jadunath Sarkar; Mughal Administration by Jadunath Sarkar". The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 3 (3): 438–439. JSTOR 25209765.
10. Davies, C. Collin (April 1949). "Maāsir-i-'Ālamgīrī of Sāqī Must'ad Khān by Jadunath Sarkar". The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 1 (1): 104–106. doi:10.1017/S0035869X00102692. JSTOR 25222314.
11. Smith, John D. (1985). "Jadunath Sarkar: A History of Jaipur, c. 1503-1938". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 48 (3): 620. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00039343. JSTOR 618587.

Sources

• Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2015). The Calling of History: Sir Jadunath Sarkar and His Empire of Truth. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-10044-9.
Further reading[edit]
• Pawar, Kiram (1985). Sir Jadunath Sarkar: a profile in historiography. Books & Books.
• Sir Jadunath Sarkar commemoration volumes by Hari Ram Gupta

External links

• Ray, Aniruddha (2012). "Sarkar, Jadunath". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
• Sir Sarkar at Britannica Encyclopedia
• Works by Jadunath Sarkar at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Jadunath Sarkar at Internet Archive

[admin]

Note on the Sarnath Inscription of Asvaghosha, by Arthur Venis, and Remarks on Professor Venis' Note, by J. F. Fleet
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
July, 1912

Note on the Sarnath Inscription of Asvaghosha

Towards the end of last year I drew the attention of Dr. J. Ph. Vogel, Officiating Director-General of Archaeology, to the existence of certain letters on the Ashoka Pillar at Sarnath and in a line continuous with the inscription of Asvaghosha, which he had edited in Epigraphia Indica, vol. viii, pp. 171-2. Dr. Vogel kindly gave me the impression, part of which is here reproduced: see the Plate at p. 700 above.



His reading of the previous words is: --

rparigeyhe rajna Asvaghoshasya chatarise savachhare hematapakhe prathame divase dasame.

And following in a continuous line are aksharas which I read –

sutithaye 4 200, 9.

Intentional injury would seem to have been the cause of both the complete obliteration of the opening letters of the Asvaghosha epigraph and the blurring of the letters which are the subject of this note. Examination of the stone further shows that the second akshara is really ti, though in the facsimile it looks like ri; and the third akshara is tha, as the dot within the circle is deep-cut. For the rest, my reading is frankly conjectural and invites correction.

To interpret these newly observed letters I assume that (1) they are a part of the Asvaghosha document, and (2) the date 209 belongs to the Malava-Vikrama era. The record would thus read: “in the fortieth year of Rajan Asvaghosha, in the first fortnight of the Hemanta season, on the tenth day, on the auspicious tithi, the fourth: in the year 209.” It is found that the fourth day of the bright half of Margasirsha of the Malava year 209 current coincides with the tenth day of the first fortnight of Hemanta in the year 74 current of the Saka era. For this calculation I am indebted to Mr. Chhote Lal (Executive Engineer P.W.D., Benares), who as “Barhaspatya” is well known by his contributions to Indian astronomy. The question whether this coincidence throws any light on the method of recording seasonal dates in early times is one with which I am not competent to deal. But returning to my assumption of the Malava era 209 current, the equivalent 151 A.D. would be the date of the Sarnath inscription, and 111 A.D. would be the date of Asvaghosha’s accession as Raja. His name is found again on a broken slab at Sarnath (E.I., loc. cit.); but, unfortunately, the record is too fragmentary to admit of reconstruction.

Arthur Venis,
Government Sanskrit College, Benares.
September 26, 2911.

Remarks on Professor Venis’ Note

The proposal made by Professor Venis for fixing the date of the Raja Asvaghosha is based on the result, given to him by Mr. Chhote Lal, that in A.D. 151 the fourth day of the bright fortnight of the month Margasirsha was the tenth day of the season Hemanta. We cannot do anything towards exactly testing this result, because not only are we not told the bases on which it rests and the tables or process by which it has been worked out, but also the most essential item, the English date (month and day), has not been given. On this point I can only say that I cannot find any means by which such a result may be arrived at. As to the proposed reading, I have to say here (1) that, if a tithi were intended, we ought to have an equivalent of the locative tithan; but tithaye[?] can only be the dative: (2) that, from the same point of view, it is very strange that the lunar month and its fortnight should not have been mentioned: (3) that it is equally strange that the year should have been stated as the final item, after the tithi. However, the matter has to be dealt with on other considerations.

The stated result assumes the use in the second century A.D. of a solar calendar alongside of the lunar calendar. Now, the Hindus have had from very ancient times the system of lunisolar cycles, made by the combination of solar years, regulated by the course of the moon, but treated in such a manner, by the periodical intercalation (and in later times the occasional omission) of lunar months, as to keep the beginning of the lunar year near the beginning of the solar year, or, as perhaps may be more properly said, to keep the lunar months as closely as is possible in agreement with the natural seasons. But there is a wide difference between (1) the astronomical use of a solar year for such a purpose as that, and (2) the practical use of a solar calendar with the details of solar months and seasons. The Hindus now have such a double calendar, solar and lunar: one item of their solar calendar is that the season Hemanta begins when the sun enters the zodiacal sign Vrisehika (answering in a general way to Scorpio): this occurs in the amanta or synodic lunar month Karttika, next before Margasirsha: and so it may happen at any time that the civil day of the fourth tithi or lunar day of the bright fortnight of Margasirsha is the tenth civil day of the season Hemanta. But the use of this solar calendar is traced only from the tenth century, in two Chola dates, one of which, belong to A.D. 943, mentions the solar month Makara, and the other, belonging to either A.D. 919 or 946, mentions the solar month Karkataka1 [For the date in A.D. 919 or 946, see Kielhorn’s List of the Inscriptions of Southern India, Epi. Ind., vol. 7, appendix, No. 691: for the date in A.D. 943, see Epi. Ind., vol. 8, p. 261, A; it has been noticed by me in this Journal, 1911. 691. (4). The month Makara begins at the Hindu winter solstice, when the sun enters the sign Makara (Capricornus): the month Karkataka begins at the Hindu summer solstice, when the sun enters the sign Karka (Cancer).] We have no reason for expecting to trace it back to any appreciably earlier time. And it certainly cannot have existed in the second century; because the signs of the zodiac, by which it is regulated, were not then known in India.

On the other hand, everything that we learn about the earlier Indian calendar makes it abundantly clear that before the time when the Greek astronomy was introduced into India, the only calendar year in practical use for all general purposes, including datings such as that in this Sarnath record of Asvaghosha, was the lunar year of twelve or thirteen synodic months, which was treated in two ways. Astronomically, and for the sacrificial calendar, it was a Maghadi year, a year beginning with Magha sukla 1, the first day of the bright fortnight of Magha: it was bound to and regulated by a solar year beginning at the winter solstice, the arrangement being that the solstice was always to occur in the amanta Magha: and apparently it might measure 354 or 355 days, or 383 or 384 days, according to circumstances, subject to a total of 1830 days, in five years.1 [We learn these and various other details from the Jyotisha Vedanga.] But in practical general use it was treated on the hard and fast lines of making it consist always of 354 days when it comprised only twelve lunar months, and of 384 days when a month was intercalated.2 [This was done by making the bright fortnights of Phalgana[?], Vaisakha, Ashadha, Bhadrapada, Karttika and Pausha, consist of only 14 days; all the other fortnights having 15 days each: see the Kautilya Arthasastra, ed. R. Shamasastry, p. 60, the last three lines. For other information about the calendar see p. 108.] Further, the seasons were treated unscientifically, as lunar seasons, governed by the moon and coinciding with two or four lunar months: and in such a way that Hemanta consisted of Margasirsha and Pausha when the seasons were counted as six, and of those two months with also Magha and Phalguna when the seasons were counted as only three in number. Also, the years were not necessarily Maghadi: for chronological purposes use was made of regnal years, beginning with the day and its successive anniversaries of the accession or the anointment of any particular king. Not only do we learn such details from the books, but also we trace the use of this lunar calendar with lunar seasons down to almost the latest of the records included in Professor Luders’ List of the Brahmi Inscriptions from the Earliest Times to about A.D. 400, in which this Sarnath inscription stands as No. 922.1 [Epi. Ind., vol. 10, appendix.] And in that calendar the fourth day of the bright fortnight of Margasirsha could only be the fourth day of the season Hemanta, and the tenth day of the season Hemanta could only be the tenth day of the bright fortnight of Margasirsha. In no circumstances could the tenth day of Hemanta be the fourth day of Margasirsha.

It seems probable that the words on the Sarnath pillar which somehow or other were overlooked previously and have been brought to notice by Professor Venis, really are part of the record of Asvaghosha.2 [Dr. Vogel has asked me to explain that these additional words were not included in the estampages from which he dealt with this record in Epi. Ind., vol. 8, p. 171, and that he had not been able to supervise in person the preparation of the estampages or to compare them afterwards with the original. ] But, on the analogy of all the similar records in the List of Brahmi Inscriptions, we may be sure that the date ends with the word dasame; that the text says: -- “In the fortieth year of the Raja Asvaghosha, in the first fortnight of Hemanta, on the tenth day:” and that, interpreted in other terms, it means “on the civil day of the tenth tithi or lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month Margasirsha.” It would be very satisfactory if we could determine an exact date A.D. for Asvaghosha; and in view of a certain feature in the record, namely, the mention of the first fortnight instead of the first month of the season, I should not have any objection to raise if good reason could be shown for placing him in A.D. 111-51 or at any time thereabouts. But that cannot be done by the means proposed by Professor Venis.

It is, no doubt, easier to criticize Professor Venis’ proposal for reading and applying the words which he has brought to notice, than it is to say what those words really are. But it may be remarked that, as has been suggested to me by Professor Luders, the first four syllables, which Professor Venis would read as sutithaye, might very well be read sukhathaya, and be taken as meaning such-arthaya “for the sake of happiness”: or, again, in accordance with the suggestions by Dr. Vogel, they might be read surithaye, and be taken as meaning su-vithaye, “for a good road.” How the remaining letters should be read, I do not venture to say.

J.F. Fleet

[admin]

Epigraphia Indica
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/30/21

-- Archaeological Survey of India, by Wikipedia

Epigraphia Indica
Discipline: Archaeology, Indology
Language: English
Publication details
History: 1888–1977
Standard abbreviations

Epigraphia Indica was the official publication of Archaeological Survey of India from 1882 to 1977. The first volume was edited by James Burgess in the year 1882. Between 1892 and 1920 it was published as a quarterly supplement to The Indian Antiquary.[1]

One part is brought out in each quarter year and eight parts make one volume of this periodical; so that one volume is released once in two years. About 43 volumes of this journal have been published so far. They have been edited by the officers who headed the Epigraphy Branch of ASI.

Editors

• J. Burgess: Vol I (1882) & Vol II (1894)
• E. Hultzsch: Vol III (1894–95), Vol IV (1896–97), Vol V (1898–99), Vol VI (1900–01), Vol VII (1902–03), Vol VIII (1905–06), Vol IX (1907–08)
• Sten Konow: Vol X (1909–10), Vol XI (1911–12), Vol XII (1913–14), Vol XIII (1915–16)
• F. W. Thomas: Vol XIV (1917–18), Vol XV (1919–20), Vol XVI (1921–22)
• H. Krishna Sastri: Vol XVII (1923–24), Vol XVIII (1925–26), Vol XIX (1927–28)
• Hiranand Shastri: Vol XX (1929–30), Vol XXI (1931–32)
• N. P. Chakravarti: Vol XXII (1933–34), Vol XXIII (1935–36), Vol XXIV (1937–38), Vol XXV (1939–40), Vol XXVI (1941–42)
• N. Lakshminarayan Rao and B. Ch. Chhabra: Vol XXVII (1947-48) [2]
• D. C. Sircar: Vol XXVIII (1949–50) - jointly with B. Ch. Chhabra), Vol XXX (1951–52) - jointly with N. Lakshminarayan Rao, Vol XXXI(1955–56), Vol XXXII(1957–58), Vol XXXIII(1959–60), Vol XXXIV(1960–61), Vol XXXV (1962–63), Vol XXXVI (1964–65)
• G. S. Gai: Vol XXXVII (1966–67), Vol XXXVIII, Vol XXXIX, Vol XL
• K. V. Ramesh: Vol XLI (1975–76), Vol XLII (1977–78)

Other contributors

• Aurel Stein
• V. Venkayya
• Robert Sewell
• D. R. Bhandarkar
• J. Ph. Vogel
• F. O. Oertel
• N. K. Ojha
• F. E. Pargiter
• F. Kielhorn
• John Faithfull Fleet
• K. A. Nilakanta Sastri
• K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyar
• T. A. Gopinatha Rao

Arabic and Persian Supplement

The ASI also published an Arabic and Persian supplement from 1907 to 1977. While the first volume in 1907 was edited by E. Denison Ross of Calcutta Madrassa and the second and third volumes by Josef Horovitz, subsequent volumes have been edited by Ghulam Yazdani (1913–40), Maulvi M. Ashraf Hussain (1949–53) and Z. A. Desai (1953–77). Since 1946, the volumes have been edited by an Assistant Superintendent for Arabic and Persian Inscriptions, a special post created by the Government of India for the purpose.

References

1. Temple, Richard Carnac. (1922) Fifty years of The Indian Antiquary. Mazgaon, Bombay: B. Miller, British India Press, pp. 3-4.
2. [1]

External links

• Official site of Archaeological Survey of India.
• First 36 volumes available online at The Digital Library of India

*****************************

https://archive.org/details/epigraphia- ... 5/mode/2up

• Volume 1: 1892
• Volume 2: 1892
• Volume 3: 1894-5
• Volume 4: 1896-97
• Volume 5: 1898-99
• Volume 6: 1900-01
• Volume 7: 1902-1903
• Volume 8: 1905-1906
• Volume 9: 1907-1908
• Volume 10: 1909-10
• Volume 11: 1911-12
• Volume 12: 1913-14
• Volume 13: 1915-16
• Volume 14:1917-18
• Volume 15a: 1919-1920
• Volume 15b:?? [Epigraphia Indica Vol. XIV. Vol. II, 1894
• Volume 16: 1921-22
• Volume 17: 1923-24
• Volume 18: 1925-26
• Volume 19: 1927-28
• Volume 20: 1929-30
• Volume 21: 1931-32
• Volume 22: 1933
• Volume 23:1935-36
• Volume 24: 1938
• Volume 25: 1939
• Volume 26: 1941
• Volume 27: 1947-48
• Volume 28: 1949-50
• Volume 29: 1951-52
• Volume 30: 1953-54
• Volume 31: 1955-56
• Volume 32: 1957
• Volume 33: 1959-60
• Volume 34: 1961-62
• Volume 35: 1963-64
• [url]Volume 36: 1965-66[/url]

[admin]

No. 51 – Sarnath Inscription of Kumaradevi
by Sten Konow
Epigraphia Indica
1907-8

The slab on which the inscription published below is incised was found during the excavations carried on by Dr. Marshall and myself in Sarnath, in March 1908. It was dug out to the north of the Dhamekh stupa, to the south of the raised mound running east and west over the remnants of the old monasteries of the Gupta period. The writing covers almost the whole of the surface of the stone, viz 21” x 15-1/2”, and it is in a perfect state of preservation. The average size of the letters is ½”.

The characters are Nagari, of a very ornamental type, and the engraving has been done with considerable skill. Of individual letters, the form of the cerebral ta in –bhatah and kandapa-tikah in line 8 is worthy of notice. There are comparatively few orthographical peculiarities. V is used for b throughout, and na is used instead of the anusvara in sudhansos-, line 11. There are some few miswritings such as harmma- for dharma-, 1.6; prakshato for prakhyato, 1.8, vishmayakaro for vismaya- and ashmadprisah for = asmadrisash, 1.13; = nenrabhirama- for –netr-, 1.15, nri- for tri-, 1.22; mahibhujah for mahibhuja, 1.19, etc. The forms Kumaradevi 11.11 and 22, and viharo in 11.23 and 26, on the other hand, are vouched for by the metre Kumara instead of kumara is common in Maharashta Prakrit, and a form Kumaravala for the usual Kumarapala occurs in Hemachandra’s Desnanamala, 1.101, 88.1 [See Pischel, Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen, § 81. ] And vihara instead of vihara is justified by Panini VI, 3.122.

The language is Sanskrit, and, with the exception of the invocation to Vasudhara in 1 1, the whole of the inscription is in verse. There are altogether twenty-six verses. Of these thirteen (Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23 and 24) are in the Sardulavikridita, five (Nos. 1, 10, 14, 15 and 20) in the Malini, four (Nos. 4, 16, 22 and 25) in the Vasantatilaka, three (Nos. 8, 9 and 26) in the Anushtubh, and one (No. 2) in the [illegible] metre.

The object of the inscription is to record the construction of a vihara by Kumaradevi, one of the queens of Govindachandra of Kanauj. The wording of verses 21 23, in which her gift is mentioned, is not quite clear. Rai Bahadur V Venkayva has suggested the following explanation, which I think is a very plausible one. Jambuka drew up a copper plate, in which she represented to Kumaradevi that the Dharmachakra-Jina originally set up by Dharmasoka required to be repaired or set up again. This copper-plate must have contained information about the original setting up of the Dharmachakra Jina and further details about its maintenance and repairs. Kumaradevi, who was apparently a stranger to the country round Benares, accepted her representation and raised her to the rank of “the foremost of puttatikas.’2 [Pattalika is the feminine form of pattalaka, which occurs in the Buguda plates of Madhavavarman, above. Vol. III, p. 44, 1.88, in connexion with vaisvdsika.] Moreover, she restored the Jina or set up a new one and placed it in the vihara built for Vasudhara, or in another one constructed for the purpose, and the wish is expressed that, after having been placed there, he may remain there for ever. It seems necessary to infer that the Sridharmachakra Jina, which is said to have existed in Dharmasoka’s time, was an image of the Buddha, and that the vihara built by the orders of Queen Kumaradevi for him, was a shrine, a gandhakuti. It is difficult to explain the wish that he, [illegible] the image, may reside there for ever, under any other supposition.

The inscription can be divided into four parts. After an invocation of Vasudhara (v.1.) and the moon (v.2) vv. 3-6 give some information about some rulers or generals of Pithi or Pithika. We learn that, in the lunar race, there arose a chief called Vallabharaja, the lord of broad Pithika (v.3). The following verse introduces the lord of Pithi Devarakshita, without saying anything about his relationship to Vallabharaja. He is described as the full moon of the lotus of the Chhikkora-vamsa, and we are told that he even surpassed Gajapati in splendor. Devarakshita is again referred to as the lord of Pithi in the second part of the inscription, and it therefore seems necessary to interpret vv. 5-6, which apparently refer to a son of his (tasmad-asa, etc.) as an explanation of his relationship to Vallabharaja, who would then be his father.

The second part of the inscription vv. 7-13, contains the information that Devarakshita was defeated by Mahana, the maternal uncle of the Gauda king, who thus firmly established the throne of Ramapala, and subsequently bestowed his daughter Sankaradevi on the Pithi lord. Their daughter was Kumaradevi, in whose praise the present inscription was written.

The third part, vv. 14-20, then contains the genealogy of the Gahadavala family, to which Kumaradevi’s husband Govindachandra belonged. It agrees with the list given in most inscriptions of this latter king, but does not carry us further back than to his grandfather. We are first introduced to Chandra, the Chandradeva of Govindachandra’s inscriptions. His son was Madanachandra, elsewhere known as Madanapala, who again was the father of Govindachandra. He is said to have saved Benares from the wicked Turushka soldier.

The fourth part of the inscription (verses 21-23) specifies the gifts of Kumaradevi, and her praise is sung in verse 21 Verses 25-26 then inform us that the inscription, which is here called a prasasta, was composed by the poet sri Kunda, and engraved by Vamana.

Govindachandra is the well-known king of Kanauj, whose inscriptions are dated between A.D. 1114 and 1154. Our inscription teaches us that he guarded Benares against the Turnshkas, i.e. the Muhammadans. We do not know of any Muhammadan expedition against Benares in Govindachandra’s time. In A.D. 1033 a Muhammadan army under Ahmad Nialtigin arrived at the town, but only stayed there for a day,1 [See H.M. Elliot, The History of India as told by its own Historians, Vol. II 1869, pp. 112 and ff.] and there is no indication of a permanent settlement. We know, on the other hand, that Mussalman settlers remained in the country about the Jamna from the days of Mahmud and down to the end of the 12th century.2 [Ibid, pp. 250 and ff.] It seems probable that Govindachandra took some action against such settlers, and the term turushkadanda, which occurs in many of his and his predecessors’ inscriptions, gives us a hint as to the nature of this action. The work turushkadanda has been variously translated as “tax on aromatic reeds” and “Muhammadan amercements”.3 [See Fuhrer, Journal Bengal Society, Vol. LVI, Pt. I, p. 113.] The information furnished by our inscription seems to show that it was in reality a tax on Muhammadans, the exact nature of which cannot, however, be determined.

Our inscription introduces us to a new queen of Govindachandra, Kumaradevi, the grand-daughter of Mahana. Three other queens are already known from inscriptions, viz Nayanakelidevi,4 [Above, Vol. IV, p. 108.] Gosaladevi5 [Kielhorn, Northern List, Nos. 127 and 131.] and Dalhanadevi6 [See Fuhrer, loc. cit. p. 115, 119.]. While Govindachandra was himself an orthodox Hindu, his fourth wife Kumaradevi was a Buddhist. According to information kindly supplied by Mahamahopadhyaya Hara Prasad Sastri, the king had still another Buddhist wife Vasantadevi, who is mentioned in the colophon of a manuscript of the Ashtasahasrika in the Nepal Darbar Library (No. 381 of the third collection). The colophon runs –sri-sri-Kanyakubj-adhipaty-asvapta gajapati-narapata-rujya-trayddhipati-srimad-Govindachandradevasya pratapavasatah rajni-sri-pravara-Mahayana-yayinyah paramopasika-rajni-Vasantadevya deyadharmmo=yam.

It is possible that Vasantadevi and Kumaradevi are one and the same person, one of the meanings of vasanta being “youth” = kumara. It is, however, more probable that they are two different persons.

Some information about Mahana, the father of Kumaradevi’s mother, and about the lord of Pithi, her father, can be gleaned from Sadhyakara Nandi’s Ramacharita, which work has been brought to light by Mahamahopadhyaya Hara Prasad Sastri.7 [Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1900, pp. 70 and ff.] We are there told that Mahana was the maternal uncle of the Gauda king Ramapala. Vigrahapala, the father of Ramapala, made a successful war against the Chedi king Karna of Dahala, of whom we possess an inscription dated Kalachuri Samvat 493=A.D. 1042.8 [Kielhorn, Northern List, No. 407.] Karna’s reign probably extended over a long period.9 [See Kielhorn, above, Vol. II, pp. 302 and ff.] We cannot, therefore, determine when the war against Vigrahapala took place. We have an inscription of the time of Vigrahapala’s grandfather Mahipala, dated A.D. 1026,10 [Kielhorn, Northern List, No. 59.] and Mahipala’s son Nayapala reigned at least 15 years.11 [Ibid., No. 642.] Vigrahapala’s accession cannot, therefore, be placed earlier than A.D. 1041. His son Ramapala, who was preceded on the throne by two brothers Mahipala II and Surapala, was a contemporary of Sankaradevi, the mother of Govindachandra’s queen Kumaradevi. It therefore seems probable that Vigrahapala’s accession should be placed about A.D. 1050, and Ramapala’s reign in the last part of the eleventh century. Mahana, Sankaradevi’s father, would then be a contemporary of both of them. The Ramacharita, which calls him Mathana or Mahana, states that he was a Rashtrakuta, and the maternal uncle of Ramapala. It therefore becomes probable that Vigrahapala married a Rashtrakuta princess in addition to the daughter of the Chedi king Karna who was, according to the Ramacharita, given to him after the war allued to above. Mahana was Ramapala’s right hand, and was of great assistance in the war against Bhima. Among the feudatories of the Pala king in that war, the Ramacharita mentions Viraguna, the raja of Pithi who is described as the lord of the south. Devarakshita of Pithi is also mentioned, but not as a feudatory. He must be identical with the Devarakshita of our inscription, and it becomes probable that the Pithi ruler Viraguna had originally stood on Ramapala’s side, while Devarakshita later on rose against him. He hailed from Pithi or pithika is synonymous with pitha, and it is therefore possible that Pithi is identical with Pithapuram.1 [Compare the forms Pithapura and Pithapuri, above, Vol. IV, p. 37, 357. Note 4.] We know that a branch of the Eastern Chalukyas reigned in Pithapuram in the second half of the twelfth century, and that the town had already been conquered by Pulihosin II. No historical information is forthcoming about the earlier Chalukya princes of the Pithapuram branch. The real history of the family only seems to begin with Vijayaditya III, whose coronation took place A.D. 1158.2 [See Hultzach, above, Vol. IV., p. 223.] It should also be noted that the genealogy given in the Pithapuram inscriptions hardly can be correct. Mr. Sewell has drawn my attention to the fact that only four generations are enumerated between Beta, who reigned in A.D. 925, and Vijayaditya III., who was crowned in A.D. 1158.

Before this branch became established in Pithapuram, the place was one of the strongholds of the Vengi province of the Eastern Chalukyas. In the last part of the 11th century, the reigning king was Kulottunga Chodadeva, who first was ruler in Vengi but who in A.D. 1070 was anointed to the Choda kingdom. Vengi was then ruled by viceroys, first by his uncle Vijayaditya VII then by his sons Rajaraja (1077-78) and Vira Choda (from 1078). Mr. Venkayya suggests that this latter viceroy may be identical with the Viraguna of the Ramapalacharita. Devarakshita was then probably a general under the viceroy of Vengi. He is said to have surpassed even the glory of Gajapati. As this epithet is used by some of the Eastern Gangas, it is possible that it here refers to Anantavarma Chodagana. The Kalingattu Parani3 [Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX., p. 329 ff.] describes an expedition undertaken by Kulottunga I. against this king, and Devarakshita may have played a role in it. We do not know anything about the Chhikkora family, to which Devarakshita belonged.

The marriage of Devarakshita’s daughter to king Govindachandra perhaps accounts for the relationship between the Cholas and the Gahadavalas commented on by Mr. Venkayya in his Annual Report for 1907-08, para. 58 and ff. An incomplete Gahadavala inscription has recently been found immediately after a record of Kulottungadeva of A.D. 1110-11, in Gangarkonda cholapuram, which it is tempting to bring into connexion with Govindachandra’s marriage. Mr. Venkayya carries the acquaintance of the Gahadavalas with the Choja kings further back to the expedition of Rajendra Chola towards the kings on the banks of the Ganges, mentioned in the Tiruvalangadu plates, and it seems very probable that this expedition led to the establishment of friendly relations with the north. Among the princes conquered by Rajendra Chola was Dharmapala of Dandabhukti, and the lord of Dandabhukti figures amongst the feudatory kings who, according to the Ramapalacharita, assisted Ramapala in his war against Bhima.

The relationship between the various persons mentioned in our inscription will be seen from the table which follows:



According to verse 25, the inscription was composed by Kunda, who describes himself as a lion to the tirthika-elephants, a Rohana mountain, full of the splendid gems of poetical composition, a poet in eight bhashas, and an intimate friend of the king of Vanga. He is not elsewhere known. His name does not occur in the Saduktikarnamrita,1 [Rajendra Lala Mitra’s Notices of Sanskrit Manuscripts, Vol. II, p. 134 and ff.] nor, so far as I know, in any other anthology. The engraver was the silpin Vamana.

TEXT



SARNATH INSCRIPTION OF KUMARADEVI



TRANSLATION

Hail. Obeisance to the exalted noble Vasudhara.

(V.1) May Vasudhara protect the worlds, who abates the broad stream of unlimited misery in the manifold universe by the nectar stream of dharma, who pours out riches of wealth and gold over earth, skies and heaven, and who conquers all the misery of man in them2 [Mr. Venkayya suggests to read dainydi-tydjayanii.]

(V.2) Victorious be that lover of the lotuses, the flashing torch for the illumination of the world, who causes oozing of the lovely moon-gems and (brings tears into) the eyes of longing people; who opens the knot of pride in haughty damsels and also the closed lotuses, who with his nectar-filled beams revives the god of love, who was burnt to ashes by Tavara, (who had been) smitten (by him).

(V. 3) In his (the moon’s) lineage, which enjoys a valour worthy of homage; which is resplendent with shining fame, which speedily annihilates the pride of the river of the gods by its purity, which destroys the splendor of its adversaries, was a hero, known by the name of Vallabharaja, honoured among princes, the victorious lord of broad Pithika, of increasing mighty prowess.

(Vv. 4-5) The full moon expanding the lotuses of the Chhikkora family, known on earth as sri-Devarakshita, the lord of Pithi (who) surpassed even the splendor of Gajapati by his splendor, whose glory alone ravished the hearts of the world, was descended from him (Vallabharaja), as the moon from the ocean, a (veritable) Vishnu (Vidhu), to the Lakshmi of beauty, a (veritable) moon in causing the rise of the ocean, viz ocular pleasure (as the moon raises the ocean); a second moon, the luster of whose light was his fame (or, a second Vishnu with Sri in the shape of the luster of his fame), an incomparable treasure of goodness, a treasure of resplendent virtues; an ocean of profundity; a peerless store of religion, a store of energy, the only depository of the lore of arms, --

(V.6) Who was the veritable celestial tree in bestowing desired objects on supplicants, who was an irresistible thunderbolt in accomplishing the splitting of the mighty mountains, viz. his haughty foes, a marvelous man, whose arm was like a sprout of a marvelous herb in healing the fever of Cupid in enamoured women, and death to kings.

(V.7.) In the Gauda country there was a peerless warrior, with his quiver,3 [The meaning of kandapatika is uncertain. The word is usually translated ‘screen.” But this meaning [lines missing]] this incomparable diadem of kshatriyas, the Anga king Mahana, the venerable maternal uncle of kings. He conquered Devarakshita in war and maintained the glory of Ramapala, which rose in splendor because the obstruction caused by his foes was removed.

Foremost among Ramapala’s allies was his maternal uncle Mathana, better known as Mahana, the Rastrakuta chief who joined Ramapala with his two sons, Mahamandalika Kanharadeva and Suvarnadeva, and his brother’s son Mahapratihara Sivaraja. Mathana had already established his fame by defeating Devaraksita, king of Pithi. This statement in RC is fully supported by the following passage of the Saranath inscription. “In the Gauda country there was a peerless warrior, the Anga king Mahana, the venerable maternal uncle of kings. He conquered Devaraksita in war and maintained the glory of Ramapala, which rose in splendour because the obstruction caused by his foes was removed.”1 [Ep. Ind. Vol. IX, p. 386 [Actually pp. 320-326].]

-- The Ramacaritam of Sandhyakaranandin, by Dr. R. C. Majumdar, M.A., Ph.D.; Dr. Radhagovinda Basak, M.A., Ph.D.; andPandit Nanigopal Banerji, Kavyatirtha

(V.8.) The daughter of this Mahanadeva was like the daughter of the mountain (i.e. Parvati), she was married to the lord of Pithi as (Parvati) to Svayambhu;

(V.9.) She was known as Sankaradevi, full of mercy like Tara, and she excelled the creepers of the wishing tree in her efforts to make gifts.

(V.10.) To them, forsooth, was born Kumaradevi, like a devi, lovely like the charming streak of the spotless autumnal moon, as if Tarini herself, prompted by compassion, had descended to earth with a wish to free the world from the ocean of misery.

(V.11.) After having created her, Brahma was filled with pride at his own cleverness in applying his art, excelled by her face the moon, being ashamed, remains in the air, rises at night becomes impure and subsequently full of spots, how can this her marvelous beauty be described by people like us?

(V.12.) She, who in a wonderful way possesses a beautiful body, which is a glittering net for entrapping female antelopes, viz. the moving eyes, and which robs the wealth of beauty of the lense waves of the playful milky ocean by her brilliant charm of lovely splendor; who does sway with the infatuation of the daughter of the mountain (i.e. Parvati) by her proud grace.

(V.13.) Her mind was set on religion alone, her desire was bent on virtues, she had undertaken to lay in a store of merit, she found a noble satisfaction in bestowing gifts, her gait was like that of an elephant, her appearance charming to the eye, she bowed down to the Buddha, and the people sang her praise, she took her stand in the play of commiseration, was the permanent abode of luck, annihilated sin, and took her pride in abundant virtue.

(V.14.) In the royal Gahadavala lineage, famous in the world, was born a king, Chandra by name, a moon (Chandra) among rulers. By the streams of tears of the wives of the kings who could not resist him, the water of the Yamuna forsooth became darker.

(V.15.) The king Madanachandra, a crest jewel amongst impetuous kings, was born from him, the lord who brought the circle of the earth under one scepter, the splendor of the fire of his valor being great and mighty, and who even lowered the glory of Maghavan by his glory.

(V.16.) Hari, who had been commissioned by Hara in order to protect Varanasi from the wicked Turushka warrior, as the only one who was able to protect the earth, was again born from him, his name being renowned as Govindachandra.

(V.17.) Wonderful, the calfs of the celestial cows could not formerly get even drops of the milk stream to drink, on account of its continuous use for satisfying the hearts of supplicants, but after the multitude of these supplicants had been gladdened through the liberality of that king, they sat down to the feast of drinking the milk which is always plentiful and applied according to their wishes.

(V.18.) In the excellent cities of his adversaries, hunters by mistake do not pick up fallen necklaces, thinking them to be nooses for the deer in it, and hunters quickly remove the fallen gold ear-ring with sticks, the garlands in their hands shaking with fear, mistaking it for a snake on account of its large size.

(V.19.) The chariot of the sun was delayed because its span of horses were greedy after the mouthful of fresh, shining, thick grass on the roofs of the palaces in the towns of his uprooted foes, and also the moon became slow, because he had to protect the gazelle (in his orb), which was falling down, having become covetous after the grass.

(V.20.) Kumaradevi, forsooth, was famous with that king, like Sri with Vishnu, and her praises were sung in the three worlds, and in the splendid harem of that king, she was indeed like the streak of the moon amongst the stars.

(V.21.) This vihara, an ornament to the earth, the round of which consists of nine segments, was made by her, and decorated as it were by Vasudhara herself in the shape of Tarini, and even the creator himself was taken with wonder when he saw it accomplished with the highest skill in the applying of wonderful arts and looking handsome with (the images of) gods.

(V.22.) Having prepared that copper-plate grant, which recorded the gift to sri-Dharma chakra Jina, for so long a time as moon and sun endure on earth, and having given it to her, that Jambuki was made (?) the foremost of all pattalikas by her (Kumaradevi).

(V.23.) This Lord of the Turning of the Wheel was restored by her in accordance with the way in which he existed in the days of Dharmasoka, the ruler of men, and even more wonderfully, and this vihara for that [illegible] was elaborated erected by her, and might be placed there, stay there as long as moon and sun ([illegible]).

(V.24.) If anyone on the surface of the world preserves her fame, she will be intent on bowing down at his pair of feet. You Jinas shall be witnesses. But if any fool robs her fame, then those lokapalas will quickly punish that wicked man in their wrath.

(V.25.) The poet in eight bhashas known as the trusted friend of the Banga-king, Sri-Kuna by name, the learned who was the only hon to attack the crowds of the elephant like heretics, who was a Rohana mountain of the flashing jewels of poetical composition, he made this eulogy of her, charming with strings of letters beautifully arranged.

(V.26.) This prasasta has been engraved by the [illegible] Vamana on this excellent stone which rivals the rajavarta (i.e. Lapis Lazuli).

[admin]

No. 44 – Spurious Lapha Plate of the Haihaya King Prithvideva: Samvat 806
by Hira Lal, B.A., Nagpur
Epigraphia Indica
P. 293
1907-8

At the request of Mr. C.U. Wills, I.C.S., Zamindari Settlement Officer, Bilaspur District, I have examined a copper plate in the possession of a Zamindar at Lapha, named Dahiraj Singh, who is over sixty years of age and whom I had the pleasure to meet. He was good enough to lend it to me for taking an impression to accompany this note. He informed me that the plate was given to one of his ancestors, who first came from Delhi and took service at Ratanpur as one of the gate-keepers of the Ratanpur Fort and also as a guard of the Rani’s palace. He used to live in the Bhedimudapara, one of the quarters of Ratanpur town. This portion of the town was eventually given to him as a mu’afi, and afterwards the present copper plate grant is said to have been given bestowing on him 120 villages belonging to the Lapha Fort. The present Zamindari contains only 75 villages and the Zamindar informed me that before Mr. Chisholm’s settlement in the year 1868, there were only 60 villages in it.

The plate is rectangular, measuring 9-1/2” x 4-5/8”, having a smooth surface, inscribed on one side only. There are two small holes on the top. The writing covers 7-1/2” x 3-1/2”, leaving out the Sri at the top.

The record consists of 8 lines surmounted by a prefatory one, the middle portion of which is spaced down, apparently for ornamental purposes. This line and the word sri at the top together with sri 5 at the commencement and subham=astu and the date in figures at the end are in prose. The rest is in verse, consisting of 5 anushtubh slokas which are numbered, except the last. There are altogether 206 letters including 9 figures.

The style of writing is Oriya, and there are not less than 25 letters which are distinctly borrowed from the alphabet of that language. All the matras or vowel signs have been marked according to what is in vogue in the present Oriya writing. The letters ja, da and va have been invariably written in Criya form. The language is Sanskrit with spelling mistakes. Thus in verse 2 we find surasamanta- instead of surasamanta-

The inscription purports to record the gift of 120 villages appertaining to the Lampha (Lapha) fort to a noble named Lunga, who had come from Delhi, by the Haihaya king Prithvideva, on the 1st day of the dark fortnight of Magha in Samvat 808. For what services the gift was made and on what conditions, is not stated, but it was to be hereditary and it was given because the king’s “mind was pleased with the Kauraviya”,1 [Perhaps Kauraraya is intended. – S.K.] which apparently means that he was pleased with the Kawar tribe, to which the donce belonged, presumably for their military services. What strikes one most at the first glance is the freshness of the metal, the clean cut and the modern characters, and this rouses suspicion. The intermixture of Oriya letters is in itself suspicious. They might, however, be old and indicate that the plate is an old one. On looking for the date such an idea gets partially confirmed, but the suspicion again revives as soon as we learn from the Zamindar that, since the grant was made, only 27 generations have supervened. The Zamindar thinks the date to be of the Vikrama era, so that the plate would be about 1,159 years old. This would give, on the average, 43 years to a generation, which is absurd. A critical examination of the record affords as easy an evidence of its being spurious. The characters are in reality all modern, having been taken from the Hindi and Oriya alphabets. The inscriptional alphabet of the Chhattisgarh Harhayas has a peculiarity of its own, not easily describable, but which distinguishes it from the modern alphabet. The most distinctive letters are cha, ja, dha, bha and sa, but in all instances where these letters occur in the present plate, they have no such distinctive features. The style of the record is also modern. I have no come across any Haihaya inscription with a sri at the top, which modern writers usually put in. Again the word sri Krishnachandra, which is apparently meant as an invocation, is a modernism, similar phrases being sri-Rama, sri-Gandia, etc. In all Haihaya inscriptions, the invocation is Om namah Sivaya, i.e. I bow down to Siva. The forger, who, I believe, has seen many of the Haihaya inscriptions, forgot the distinctive Haihaya invocation owing to the story of Sri-Krishna being uppermost in his mind, and he thought that as Krishna was so well pleased with Mayuradhvaja, the supposed ancestor of the Haibayas, an invocation to that deity would be most appropriate. The next phrase, calling the record vijaya-lekha or the victorious writ, meaning royal record, is another novelty of the Oriya type, in which, as in Dravidian languages, the addition of vijaya or victory to every act done by a high personage is a matter of etiquette. A Raja does not go, he conquers vijaya karuchhanti, he does not eat, he conquers the kitchen, he does not answer the call of nature, he conquers the latrine, and so on. I have no come across any other grant being distinguished as vijaya-lekha. The next phrase refers to a seal, which is nowhere to be found. The prefatory phrases done, the record proper again begins with a modernism, vis sri 5. This reminds one of a Hindi letter-writer which was used in schools, some years ago, in which there was a couplet to the effect that 6 sris should be recorded for a preceptor, 5 for a master, 4 for an enemy, 3 for a friend, 2 for a servant, and 1 for a wife or son. This must have occurred to the writer’s mind, more particularly because he was, as I suppose, a school-master himself and was probably teaching the Pattrahitaishini to his pupils.


Lapha spurious plate of Prithvideva – Samvat 806
W. Griggs, Photo-lith.

Now with regard to the date, the Vikrama year 806 or 749 A.D. is impossible. It goes back to a period when probably the Haihayas had not at all come to Chhatisgarh. From inscriptions we have a date 1114 of Jajalladeva2 [Ep. Ind. Vol. I, p. 34.] I, who was fifth in descent from Kalingaraja, the first Haihaya, who is said to have conquered Dakshinakosala. Taking then the date of Kalingaraja to be 1000 A.D., the present grant would have been made by the Haihayas 250 years before they began to rule in Chhattisgarh. Even if we suppose that it refers to the Kalachuri era, it would be equivalent to 1054 A.D., i.e. almost contemporaneous with the commencement of Haihaya rule. Prithviraja was fourth in descent from Kalingaraja and was the father of Jajulladeva I. The date of this plate would place a difference of 60 years between father and son, if we suppose that both records were written in the first year of their reigns. This is again improbable. These kings moreover had not then gone to Ratanpur.

On the whole, I come to the conclusion for reasons stated above that this grant to Lunga is a lunga affair and was perpetrated somewhere between 1860 and 1870 by a Sanskritist of Ratanpur, whom I do not desire to name out of respect for his Sanskrit learning. I suppose “dull penury” induced him to undertake a work which he would not have otherwise done. The record does not show any adequate cause for the grant being made, and it is noteworthy that exactly double the number of villages of those which the Zamindari contained before Mr. Chisholm’s settlement were recorded as granted by the Haihaya Raja. It may be noted that when this record was written the change of the tribal name of the donce or his descendants from Kawar to Tawar had not been mooted or at least had not been seriously taken up, otherwise we should not have had the phrase Kauraviya-prasannadhih in verse 3. There is a family genealogy of the Lapha Zamindar, written in the year 1927 or 1870 A.D., which shows that the tribal name had then been changed to Tawar.

TEXT



TRANSLATION

Sri
The illustrious Krishnachandra
The Victorious writ
The Illustrious writer’s regular seal
Sri 5. Hail.

(verse 1.) The illustrious Maharajadhiraja Prithvideva, the king of many countries (is) very intelligent. (His) lotus feet are shining with the diadems (of kings prostrating before him).

(V.2.) (He is as it were) the sun amongst the descendants of the Haihayas and is served by his brave feudatories. His army is full of very extraordinary soldiers. He is the destroyer of his enemies.

(V.3-4.) His mind being pleased with the Kauraviyas1 [Or, if we read Kauravaya, "he gave to the very brave and noble Kaurava (Kawar) named Lunga."] (Kawara) he gave to the very brave noble named Lunga, who had come from Delhi, 120 villages with the Lampha fort for maintenance from generation to generation, on the first day of the dark fortnight of the Magha month in the expired year (symbolically expressed by) flavor (6) sky (0) and eight (8).

Future kings should always respect my gift written on the copper plate by Madhava Sui. Let good fortune attend. The first day of the dark fortnight of Magha in the year 806.

[admin]

No. 35. The Kotwalipara Spurious Grant of Samacara Deva.
by Rakhal Das Banerji, with a Prefatory Note by Mr. H. E. Stapleton, B.A., Inspector of Schools, Dacca
Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, Vol. vi., p. 429
1911

NOTE

The principal feature of the bil country lying in the S.W. of Faridpur district is the finely preserved fortification of Kotwalipara, the mud walls of which are each about 2 miles long and 20 to 30 feet high. Early in 1908, in the course of a tour of inspection in Bakarganj and Southern Faridpur, I had the opportunity of visiting the locality in company with an Assistant Settlement Officer, Babu Kalipada Maitra, and as the result of my request that he should look out for coins, and copper plates similar to the one described in the Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal for 1896, pp. 6-15, by Babu Nagendranath Basu, that is alleged to have come from the village of Pinjuri close to and outside the south-west corner of the fortification, Kalipada Babu forwarded to me later, in 1908, the rubbings of two Gupta coins, and the copper-plate that forms the subject of Babu Rakhaldas Banerji’s note. A cast of one Gupta coin now in my possession, belonging to Skanda Gupta, was exhibited with the copper-plate at the Society’s Conversazione last January, and the other coin is dealt with in a recent paper on Eastern Bengal and Assam history (Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 1909, Contributions 1, p. 142). The copper-plate was at first entrusted to Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Sastri who, with the help of Pandit Nilmani Chakravarti, roughly deciphered it and read the date as being 44 of the Sri Harsha era (=651 A.D.). He added, however, that, in the opinion of the late Dr. Bloch, the plate was a kuta sasana, or forgery. Babu Rakhaldas Banerji subsequently undertook to make a more thorough study of the plate, with the result that Dr. Bloch’s opinion seems to be confirmed.

The plate is said to have been recently discovered about 9 inches under the surface of the ground by a cultivator while digging his holding at Ghagrahati, a mauza close to Pinjuri on the Ghagar River which runs from north to south along the western par of the fortification. The names of the mauzas in the immediate vicinity bear no relation to the names given at the end of the fortification, but 2-1/2 miles north, near the north-west corner of the fort, occur four mauzas, Ferdhara (to the south of the village and thana Ghagarhat), Koakha (to the north-east of the same village), Parkunahat (within the fort at the N.W. angle, and Kujbon (a large mauza, of which the southern boundary is the northern par). The first two appear to be the modern representatives of Vidyadhara Jogika and Chandra Varmma Kogaku respectively, and indicate that the original deposit-spot of the copper-plate under consideration was, near the place where the old road from Ghagrahat to Gaurnadi (in N.E. Bakarganj) still passes through the western par.

The plate is interesting as dating from before the time of the Sena Kings, though it is disappointing that no light is thrown on the question as to who was the builder of the pars. The discovery of the Gupta coins in villages lying close to the western par may be taken, however, as proof that the fortification dates back to at least Gupta times, as, apart from the pars, there is nothing in the surrounding bil country to induce invaders from the N.E. to visit the place. The history of the locality will form the subject of a later paper.

H.E.S.

The plate was sent to me at Mussoorie by Mr. H.E. Stapleton in September, 1908. It was sent back in November from Lucknow for the Society’s Conversazione. The plate was finally handed over to me for publication in July 1909. Mr. Stapleton has recorded the provenance in the prefatory note. The discovery of the copper-plate and the gold coin in the mounds of the outskirts of Kotwalipara is of great interest, as it proves beyond doubt that there was an ancient settlement at this place centuries prior to the Mussalman conquest. Kotwalipara or Kotalipada is at present known as one of the oldest Brahmana colonies in Bengal. Prof. Nilmani Chakravartti wrote to me while I was at Lucknow that the late Dr. Bloch had pronounced the grant to be a forgery. Dr. Bloch himself told me a short time before his death, that he considered the grant to be a forgery. Nothing seems irregular in the script or the date at first. The script belongs to the period when acute-angled characters were beginning to be used in North-Eastern India, and the ancient Gupta alphabet of the Eastern variety was gradually becoming out of date. The date also is not irregular, the year 34 of the Harsa era = 640-41 A.D. also suiting the paleography. After prolonged examination I found some of the minor irregularities in the script: --

(1) In all cases, the letter ha, when it occurs singly, is of the form generally to be found in early Gupta inscriptions of the Western variety and shows no acute angle at the bottom. But when it is used in a compound letter it has the form to be found in early Gupta characters of the Eastern variety, which is to be found in the Allahabad Asoka-pillar inscription of Samudra Gupta1 [Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 1. ] and the Dhanaidaha grant of Kumaragupta I.2 [See ante, vol. v., p. 459.] In a previous number of the Journal I have tried to establish that the Eastern variety of the early Gupta alphabet was dying out in the early decades of the fifth century. The Patiakella grant of Sivaraja1 [Ep. Ind., vol. ix, p. 285.] and the Bodh-Gaya inscription of Mahanaman2 [Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 274, pl. xlia.] prove that the elimination of the Eastern variety of the fourth century alphabet was complete by the end of the sixth century A.D. This conclusion is further borne out by the Mundesvari Inscription of Udayasena3 [Ep. Ind., vol. ix, p. 289.] and the Ganjam plate of the time of Sasankaraja.4 [Ibid., vol. vi, p. 143.] Moreover the ha of the Western variety occurring singly and that of the Eastern variety occurring in compounds (hma in brahmana in line 11 and line 14), are hardly in keeping with the general tone of the characters of the inscriptions. But I shall have to dilate on this point later on.

(2) In all cases, the long I has the form generally to be found in the Eastern variety of the early Gupta alphabet. The most conspicuous case is the I in Jivadatta in line 4 and to some extent I in Kesav-adin in line 15. But in a genuine inscription of the Harsa year 34 one expects long I of the looped form to be found in the Mundesvari Inscription or the Ganjam grant.

(3) There are two cases of the occurrence of the short I in its single form, and in each case it has a different form. The I in icchamy-ahain in line 9 consists of two dots, one above the other, and vertical straight line to the proper left. The I in icchato in line 14 consists of two dots, placed side by side with a horizontal straight line below them. The usual form of I in inscriptions of the first half of the seventh century is to be found in the two copper-plate grants of Harsavarddhana and the Ganjam plate of the time of Sasankaraja. This consists of two dots or circles places side by side and a curved line below them.

(4) Many of the characters of this inscription exhibit fourth century or early Gupta forms. In the majority of cases the letter nia[?] has the hooked form to be found in the Bharadi Dih [illegible] inga inscription. The bipartite ya looks ill side by side with [illegible] ja and ha (when it occurs alone), in which no acute angle can be traced.

(5) La as a subscript letter occurs only once and resembled the hooked la of the Eastern variety. In this inscription la in [illegible] and other cases resembles the la of the Western variety of the Gupta alphabet.

(6) Da has two forms when occurring in the same compound nda: -- c.f. Suvarnda in line 3 and mandale in line 4 with Vatsakunda in line 77 and Janarddaka-kunda in line 8. In the last two cases the compound has the form to be found in all Northern Indian inscriptions from the second to seventh century A.D.

(7) The scribe has made a serious mistake in using some eighth century characters of the Northern variety in the word Parkkati in line 19. The letter pa in the word does not resemble the remaining ones, which are usually rectangular in form, seldom showing an acute angle. In this letter, the right-hand vertical and the horizontal straight lines of the letter have merged into a single curve. The earliest occurrence of this form of pa is to be found in inscriptions of the seventh and eighth centuries A.D. But the more important piece of evidence is to be found in the second syllable rkka. This consists of two looped kas and a superscript ra. But even in the Banskhera and Madhuban plates of Harsavarddhana, which are inscripted with characters so cursive and at the same time the execution is so very beautiful that they may be taken to represent the current script of the period, the looped form of ka in the sixth century A.D. are to be found in the Bodh-Gaya Inscription of Mahanaman and the Ganjam plates of the time of Sasanka.1 [ Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 274, pl. xlia: Epi. Ind., vol. vi., 143.]

This form of ka becomes fairly common from the last quarter of the seventh century A.D. and afterwards.

Thus, we find that the characters used in this copper-plate inscription were collection from alphabets in use in three different centuries: --

(1) The alphabet of the third and the first half of the fourth century A.D., c.f. ha in hma and la in sloka. The form of ma shows that it was copied from the early Gupta alphabet of the Eastern variety.

(2) The alphabet of the last half of the fifth century and the first half of the sixth century A.D. of North-Eastern India. The absence of acute angles in ja, pa, ha and la shows that the alphabet of the period of the Mundesvari inscription was also included.

(3) The regular alphabet of the sixth century with its profusion of acute angles is also very conspicuous. This alphabet came into general use in North-Eastern India in the earlier part of the seventh century A.D.

Apart from the palaeographical evidence, the wording of the inscription itself is sufficient to prove that it is a forgery.

The formula of a regular grant of land as is to be found in majority of copper-plate inscriptions may be divided into three separate parts: --

(1) The first portion may be either in prose or verse and generally gives the genealogy of the king or eulogium on him.

In shorter grants this portion is written in prose and gives the titles of the king.

(2) The second portion is invariably written in prose and contains the announcement of the grant to the various officers concerned. This portion also contains the details about the grant, e.c., the particular division, district or sub-division in which the land or village granted was situated.

(3) Some imprecatory verses [verb. (intr) to swear, curse, or blaspheme. (tr) to invoke or bring down (evil, a curse, etc) to imprecate disaster on the ship.] generally taken from some of the Dharma Sastras are added at the end. In some cases the date is given after these imprecatory verses.

This grant differs from the majority of copper-plate grants discovered up to date in the following particulars: --

(1) The king does not seem to be the donor, or to have consented, or to have sanctioned the grant.

(2) The name of the donor cannot be made out from the wording of this grant.

(3) The officers concerned in a particular grant are never mentioned by name: at least no such instance has been discovered up to date.

(4) Supratikasvami seems to be the agent by whom the various officers mentioned in lines 4 to 8 are informed about the grant. But the very same man is again mentioned in line 17. The construction of this line is ambiguous, but it seems that he is the man to whom the grant was made. For example, compare the statement in lines 9 to 12, where he says, “By your grace I intend to settle for ever in order to spread the sacrificial rites in this world.” The wording of this line too is also very ambiguous, and I am not quite sure as to the exactness of the above translation. Such a statement, viz., the expression of the grantee’s intention, is very odd in the wording of a copper-plate grant and, so far as I know, has not been met with before. The employment of the recipient of a grant as a Dutaka is against extremely unusual, and I believe no such case has been met with up to date.

The wording of the copper-plate, as I have already stated, is very ambiguous, and it cannot be made out who is the real donor. It is quite certain that the king mentioned in line 2 is not the donor. The grant may have been made by the officers mentioned on the obverse, but this is not certain. In any case, when a subordinate officer, or a number of officers, or a private personage makes a grant, it is absolutely necessary to obtain the royal sanction to it. Similar cases have already been met with: compare the Kamauli grant of the Singara Chief Vatsaraja of the Vikrama year 1191=1123 A.D.1 [Epi. Ind., vol. iv., p. 131. ]

The contents of lines 12 and 13 are quite unintelligible. Here and there words of Sanskritic origin are to be found mixed up with what seems to be unintelligible gibberish. The scribe’s object most probably was to create an impression by using high-sounding words. Dr. Bloch seems to have deciphered these two lines in a different manner, but I do not think he succeeded in interpreting them. We have a mention of a forged grant in the Madhuban grant of Harsavarddhana, in which we find that the king, finding that a Brahmana named Vamarathya was enjoying a village named Somakundaka in the Sravasti bhukti by holding a forged grant, confiscated the village and granted it to another man in the 25th year of his reign, i.e., 631-32 A.D. The wording of the 10th line of the plate is quite clear.

“Somakundakagramo Brahmana Vamarthyena kutasasanena bhuktaka iti vicarya yatas-tac-chasanam bhanktva tasmadaksipya ca.”1 [Epi. Ind., vol. vii, p. 158. ]

The inscription is incised on a thin plate of copper measuring 8-1/1” x 4-3/4”. There is a projection to the proper right of the inscription to which the seal was attached. The seal itself has now disappeared revealing a triangular slit, the object of which is inexplicable to me. Round holes are to be found in grants which are incised on two or more plates, and the ring holding together these plates passes through these holes, but these holes are always round, and I do not remember having ever seen or heard of an angular hole in a copper-plate. The average height of the letters are 3/8”. The record is incised on both sides of the plate, the obverse bearing 12 lines and the reverse 11. The orthography scarcely needs any comment, but the following forms should be noted: --

(1) The suvarnda in line 3 was most probably meant to be Suvarna.

(2) Vyavahanascha is most probably equivalent to Vyava-harinas-ca.

(3) The word Patacca in line 16 seems to be the Prakrit form of Praticya. The use of this word is another argument against the genuineness of the grant. The language of the grant is incorrect Sanskrit. Another strong argument against the genuineness of the grant is that the scribe wanted to put extra stress on the word Tamrapatta. It has also been used at least thrice, and it seems that the owner of the plate was over-anxious to get the plate established as a regular grant; compare line 11 [x], lines 15-16 [x] and line 17 [x].

Nothing is known at present about Samacaradeva, the king in whose reign the grant purports to have been issued. The date at the end of the grant is 34, and this should be referred to the Harsa era and not to the Gupta era. It must be admitted that a large number of letters of the Eastern variety of the early Gupta alphabets has been used in this grant, but the general tendency of the characters show that the scribe intended to use the acute-angled alphabets of the sixth and sixth [seventh?] century A.D. If this supposition is correct then the date of the grant is the 1st of Kartika of the Harsa year 34, i.e., 640 A.D. I may note in this connection that the date has been different read by two different scholars.

Prof. Nilmani Chakravarti of the Presidency College read this date as 44, but this can hardly be the case, as the letter la has always been used to denote the numeral 30. In another grant I have noticed that any other compound formed with the letter la also denotes the same numeral.1 [ ]

The late Dr. Bloch read the date to be 14, but I believe I have already adduced sufficient proof to establish my reading. In the year 640 Emperor Harsavarddhana of Thanesvara was alive and was in undisputed possession of Northern India from the Panjab to Assam. At this time the existence of an independent monarch, as is indicated by the title Maharajadhiraja, in Eastern Bengal can hardly be credited unless substantiated by epigraphs. I edit the inscription from the original plate.

TEXT

Obverse



Reverse



Plate XXIX.


[iThe Kotwalipara grant. – Obverse.[/i]

[admin]

A Copper-Plate Grant from East Bengal Alleged To Be Spurious
by F.E. Pargiter
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
pp. 710-711
July, 1912

In the last Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, that for the year 1907-8 (p. 255), is published a notice, with a transcript, of a copper-plate grant found in the south-west corner of the Faridpur District in East Bengal. The notice was written by the late Dr. T. Bloch, and he pronounced the grant to be spurious; but it is not spurious, and I may be permitted to draw attention to it with a few remarks.

Three copper-plate grants were found in that district during the years 1891 and 1892, and were given to me by Dr. Hoernle to be deciphered in 1908. At that time this fourth plate was discovered and was brought to our notice by Dr. Bloch. He said it would be published in the Arch. Report for 1907-8, and I proceeded with the decipherment of the three earlier grants, but a photograph of that grant was sent me by the kindness of a friend. Those three grants were published by me in July, 1910, in the Indian Antiquary (vo. xxxix, p. 193). The fourth plate was published by Babu R.D. Banerji in 1910 in the Journal of the Beng. As. Soc. (vol. vi, p. 429), under the title “The Kotwalipara spurious grant of Samacara Deva.” I then took up the matter of this grant, and published a paper dealing fully with it in that Society’s Journal last year (vol. vii, p. 475), under the title “The Ghagrahati (Kotwalipara) grant and three other copper-plate grants.” While that paper was in the press the Arch. Report came out with Dr. Bloch’s notice of the grant.

Both Dr. Bloch and Babu R.D. Banerji have pronounced this fourth grant to be spurious, but they had not the advantage of seeing the three other grants, whereas I had the advantage of reading all four before pronouncing any opinion on any one of them. These grants are of a somewhat new kind. They are not royal deeds, but are grants of lands by private persons to Brahmans. I only wish now to draw attention to the genuineness of this fourth grant and anyone who may be interested in this question will find it dealt with fully in my article in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society.

F.E. Pargiter

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

No. 36. The Ghagrahati (Kotwalipara) Grant and Three other Copper-Plate Grants.
by F.E. Pargiter, M.A.
Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal
Vol. VII, p. 475-502
1911

Babu Rakhal Das Banerji has published in this Journal (Vol. VI, No. 8 for 1910, p. 429) an interesting description and reading of a copper-plate grant, which is dated in the reign of a king named Samacaradeva, and which was found in mauza Ghagrahati in the south-west corner of the Faridpur district in 1908. Dr. Bloch brought the grant to the notice of Dr. Hoernle and me towards the end of that year, when I was at Dr. Hoernle’s request editing three copper-plate grants found in the same district some years previously; and we were informed that it would be published in the Indian Archaeological Report. A photograph of it was sent me by the kindness of a friend in 1909, and I read it then for the purpose of obtaining information that might elucidate the three earlier grants. My article on those grants was published in 1910.1 [Indian Antiquary, vol. XXXIX, 1910, p. 193.] The fourth grant has now been published in a fine copy and has been edited by Babu R.D. Banerji in this Journal as mentioned above2 [It has also bee published subsequently in the Rep. A.S.I. for 1907-8; see postscript.] – an event that I have awaited with much interest, as it enables me to comply with the Society’s desire that I should write a paper dealing with these grants. The three other grants are marked A, B and C in my article and will be cited by those marks in this paper. I may express my regret that this grant has been styled the “Kotwalipara Grant,” because Kotwalipara is some two or three miles distant from where it was found. It is better to name it the “Ghagrahati Grant,” because it was found in Ghagrahati, and presumably relates to land there as will appear further on.

I may begin by giving my reading and a translation of this fourth grant, because he has marked several words in his transcript as doubtful, and has not given us the benefit of a translation of it as he reads it. The plate published with his article and his reading of it have enabled me to correct my reading in three words, Pavittruko (1.5), caru (1.10) and krtya (1.16), and the plate has enabled me to reconsider three difficult words, vothya° (1.3), and samsimriya and bhavya° (1.13); but in all other respects the reading that I made two years ago has not needed alteration, because the photograph sent me was an excellent one. As he makes no reference to my article on the three other grants, it seems he had not seen it when he published his article on this fourth grant. I had the advantage of seeing the photograph of this grant before I published my article, and a comparison of all the grants is almost essential to an understanding of this grant.

It will be most convenient then, if I first give my reading of this grant with remarks explanatory of my reading, and a translation of the grant with notes explaining its meaning and object, and afterwards consider the validity of this grant with reference to the scrutiny which he has made of it, comparing throughout all matters in the four grants that bear upon and elucidate one another. I will give my transliteration of this grant in Roman characters, because they are more convenient than Devanagari letters, inasmuch as they permit of the words being separated and thus exhibited more clearly than is possible with the latter. Letters and marks enclosed in round brackets in the transcript are particulars, that have been omitted in the grant and should be added to make it correct.

TEXT

First Side.

1. Svasty=Asyam=prthivyam=apratirathe Nrga-Nahusa-Yayaty-Amvarisa-sama-

2 dhrtau Maharaj-adhiraja-Sri-Samacaradeve prata-paty=etac-carana-karala-1 [Read kamala.]

3 yugal-aradhan-opatta-Navyavakasikayam suvarnna-vothy-adhikrt-antara-

4 nga Uparika-Jivadattas Tad-anumoditaka-Varaka-mandale visaya-

5 pati-Pavittruko Yato (‘)sya vyavaharatah Suprati-kasvamina jyesth-adhi-

6 karanika-Damuka-pramukham-adhikaranam=visaya-mahattara-Vatsa-

7 kunda-mahattara-Sucipalita-mahattara-Vihitaghosa-svarada(?)-

8 mahattara-Priyadatta2 [Read Priyadatta.] –mahattara-Janarddanakund-adayah anye ca

9 vahavah pradhana vyavaha(ri)nas=ca vijnapta3 [Read vijnapta.] Iccha-my=aham bhavata(m) prasa-

10 dac=cirovasanna4 [Read probably cir-avasanna.] –khila-bhu-khandalakam vali-caru-sattra-pravarttaniya5 [Read pravarttaniya.]

11 vrahman-opayogaya ca tamra-patti-krtya taqd=arhatha prasada(m) ka(r)ttu-

12 m=iti Yata enad=abhyarthanam=upalabhya Samth-oparilikhit-a6 [Or perhaps ° likhit-o.] ….7 [Some aksaras are obliterated here, probably two.]

Second Side.

13 nyair=vyavaharibhih samsmrtya Sa sata svapadair=justa rajno bhavy-artha-nisphala

14 vatsa bhogyi-krta bhumir=nrpasy-aiv-artha-dharm-ma-kr(t) Tad=asmai vrahmana(ya) dayatam1 [Read diyatam.] =i-

15 ty=avadhrtya karanika-Nayanaga-Kesav-adin=kula-varan=prakalpya prak=tamra-patti-

16 krtya2 [Krta- would make better grammar, but the meaning is clear.] ksettra-kulya-vapa-ttrayamm3 [Read ttrayam.]=apasya Vya-ghra-corako4 [Read corake.] yac=chesam tac=catuh-sima-

17 linga5 [Read linga-.] –nirddistam krtv-asya Supratikasvaminah tamra-patti-krtya pratipadita(m)

18 Sima-lingani c-attrah6 [Read c-attra.] Purvvasyam pisaca-parkkatti Daksinena Vidya-

19 dhara-jotika Pascimayam Candracampa-kota-kenah Uttarena7 [Read uttarena.] Go-

20 pendra-coraka8 [Read corako.] grama-sima c-eti // Bhavanti c-attra slokah Sastim=varsa-saha-

21 srani svarge modati bhumi-dah Aksepta c-anumanta ca9 [Read ca, or perhaps va.] tany=eva narake vaset /

22 Sva-da(t)tam=para-dattam=va yo hareta vasundha-ram sva-visthaya(m) krmi(r} bhutva pitrbhi(h)

23 saha pacyate // Samvatsa 10 4 Kartti di 1

Remarks on the reading of the Text.

I will now discuss the points in which my reading differs from Babu R.D. Banerji’s.

In the first place, this inscription makes no distinction between b and v, but has v in every case. He transcribes the v sometimes as b and sometimes as v; thus for instance, he transcribes the word vahavah (1.9) as bahavah as it should be in correct Sanskrit. It is always desirable that a transcript should be accurate, but apart from that, this point is of some importance. The use of the character for v in all cases (whether the proper sound should be b or whether it should be v in correct Sanskrit), even in the word vrahmana (11.11 and 14) shews that (subject to the qualification mentioned below) no distinction was ordinarily observed between these two letters, and that Sanskrit b’s and v’s were uniformly pronounced as b and written as v, in this part of the country when this inscription was composed. Hense it appears that two opposite changes had taken place, namely, the sound of v disappeared and was replaced by b, and the character for b disappeared and was replaced by that for v. These changes characterize Bengali at the present day, for it has not got the sound of v nor the character for b, and the sound of b is expressed by the character for v. This peculiarity then must be observed in transcribing this inscription; but this conclusion must be qualified by considering the value of the character for v when it is the last member of a compound consonant in a single word. I do not refer to cases, where v beginning a word follows a word ending in m and the two appear as mv in the plate, as in adhikaranamvisaya (1.6), because there the conclusion would not be affected. Where v is compounded with a labial or r, as in Amvarisa (1.1), purvvasyam (1.18) and samvatsa (1.23), it had no doubt the sound of b; but when compounded with a dental, as in krtva (1.17), or with a sibilant, as in svamin (11.5 and 17) and svapadair (I.13), it could hardly have been pronounced as b and had probably the sound of w as in Sanskrit, for it could not have then acquired the indistinct sound which it has now in such compounds in Bengali. Thus it appears that in no position did the character for v have the sound of v, but was always pronounced as b except in certain compounds where it had the sound of w probably.

The other grants differ in this respect. The character for b is used in grant A in labdha° (1.2), bappa (1.6) and Brahman-asya (1.8); and in grant B in Ambarisa (II. 1-2), brahmane (I. 11) and brahmana (I.20). In grant C very much has been destroyed by corrosion, yet perhaps b occurs in labdha° (1.2). The letter b was therefore distinguished in grants A and B, and perhaps in C; yet the above changes were developing then, because v is substituted for b in grant A in Amvarisa (I.1) and pravandhena (I.12); and in grant C in Amvarisa (I.1). They had become completely established at the time of this grant.

In the next place it may be mentioned that Babu R.D. Banerji does not always transcribe as double the letters that are doubled in the inscription, for instance, the words Pavittruko (I. 5), sattra (I. 10), ksettra and ttrayam (I. 16), and cattrah (I.18) appear in his transcript with the t single. In this connexion I may notice suvarnna in I. 3. He transcribes it as suvarna, but reads it really as suvarnda (p. 431), remarking there that da (that is, da) has two forms when occurring in the compound nda, namely, one form in suvarnda and mandale (I. 4), and the other in (Vatsa-)kunda (I.7) and Janarddana-kunda1 [He writes Janarddaka; probably a clerical error.] (I.8). This seems to me to be a mistake, for the d in the last three words is the same (though not exactly identical, because no two written letters are ever exactly alike, and even the n is not identical in those three words), whereas in the first word there are unmistakable traces of a second n written under the main n, so that the letter is really rnna. He rightly conjectures that this is what is meant (p. 434).

Some remarks may be made regarding the vowel signs in connexion with the word dhrtau (I.2), for that is the word as clearly shown in grants A and B. Babu R.D. Banerji writes it dhrtam, but there is a stroke to the left above the letter t, and as it is no part of dh or t it must be meant for a vowel mark, being written flat because there was hardly room to write it in its proper shape without running into the letter stya above it. The whole aksara then looks like to with a dot over it, and the dot is not, I think, anusvara but represents the third stroke which goes to form the vowel au, for the following reasons. There is much laxity in the way in which vowel marks are written in this plate. The sign which denotes a is written in various ways, and its chief modifications may be seen by comparing it in the words svadatam (I.22), ja in raja (I.2), sima (I.20), °opatta (I.3), kundadayah (I.8), purvvasyam (I.18), navya° (I.3), and varan (I.15); but in one instance dacciro° (I.10) it is reduced to what is practically a dot. There is a tendency, where a vowel sign consists of more than one stroke, to reduce one of the strokes to a dot. Accordingly the a stroke which constitutes part of the vowel sign o is reduced practically to a dot in Pavittruko (I. 5), corako (I. 16) and kota (I. 19). Similarly the curl of the vowel sign I is replaced by a dot in almost every case, as is clearly seen in Supratika (I. 5), sima (I. 20) and Kesavadin (I. 15). It would be quite in accordance with this tendency then to turn one of the three strokes of au into a dot, and especially in dhrtau since there was hardly room to make the middle stroke properly because of the closeness of the letter stya above it.

I will now notice the other differences between my reading and Babu R.D. Banerji’s line by line.

Line 1. He writes prthivyam pratirathe, but the text has prthivyam apartirathe clearly.

Line 3. He reads vasya°, but the vowel sign over v consists of two strokes and cannot be a. It seems to be meant for o, the stroke which should be turned to the left being turned here to the right, because there was hardly room to write it properly because of the closeness of the letter tye above it. The main part of the second aksara is th and not s, as will be seen by a comparison of th in prthivyam (I.1), artha (I.15), etc., with s in Sri (I.2), kasikayam (I. 3), etc. The word appears therefore to be vothya°. At the end of the line he has omitted ra.

Line 4. The letter ka between anumodita and Varaka is the termination of the former word. Many instances in which ka is added to verbal participles will be found in inscriptions, and Varaka is the province; see p. 487 below.

Line 5. He reads vyavaharatah, but the h has no vowel mark a and the word is vyavaharatah. It is however probably a mistake for vyavaharatah.

Line 7. He reads surada; the first letter however is not su which occurs in Sucipatita in this line, but is sva as is seen in svapadair (I. 13); though perhaps it may be intended for sca which we find in vyavaha(ri)nas-ca (I.9) and pascimayam (I.19). The second letter resembles ra, but appears to have two dots on its left which suggest that it may be some other consonant unfinished; and further it seems to have some indistinct vowel marks above it. The third letter is much blurred; so much as is clear suggests da, but it may be some other consonant and seems to have r or m written over it. I transcripbe it as svarada, but feel certain it is really something different, though I cannot suggest any emendation.

Line 8. Babu R.D. Banerji reads Priyadatta, but the d has the vowel a, and the word is really Priyadatta, though it should no doubt be Priyadatta. He reads kundadaya, but there is a visarga after it, and the reading is kundadayah.

Line 9. I agree with him that vyavahanas is a mistake for vyavaharinas. It is merely a clerical error such as is common in grants.

Line 10. The reading is not khandalaka but khandalakam, because there is an anusvara above and a little to the right of the k. He reads pravarttaniya, but the word written is pravarttaniya, for the n is dental and its vowel is I and not I as will be seen on comparing these vowels in other words. The word should be pravarttaniya.

Line 11. The reading is not brahmanopaya gayaca but vrahmanopayogaya ca, for the first y has clearly above it a leftward stroke which with the a stroke forms o, though its significance is somewhat marred in that it joins the bottom of the letter nna in the line above. He reads tad arham [ya]tha, but the words are tad arhatha, for the h has only a superscript r and not an anusvara in addition, and the th has no vowel a. Arhatha is the second person plural of the present tense of arh. He reads the last word as katra, but it is kattu. The difference between conjunct r and the vowel u is seen on comparing sattra (I. 10) with anumoditaka (I. 4) and catuh (I. 16), but the full curve of the u in kattu is marred because it is on the edge of the plate. The whole word (If we complete it by reading on into I. 12) is kattum iti, which is an error for karttum iti. There must be an infinitive here after the verb arhatha.

Line 12. The reading is not yata dhanad but yata enad, dh and e being much alike. Enad is the accusative case singular of etad in the neuter. He reads sam tho, but the word is samtho°, the sibilant being clearly s. This must be read with the following letters as samthoparilikhita°, that is, samtha + uparilikhita°. At the end of the line came some word, which began with a (so as to produce °likhita° by Sandhi), and had probably two aksaras which have been obliterated, and finished with nyair in I. 13.

Line 13. This is the most difficult of all the lines as Babu R.D. Banerji has noted. The first two aksaras are more than nya vya° as he reads, for the nya has vowel marks above it and the vya appears to have a superscript r. The reading must be nyair vya°; and nyair is the final syllable of the word which has become obliterated at the end of I. 12, and which is in the instrumental case plural agreeing with vyavaharibhih. Still if we read nya, it would be compounded with vyavaharibhih, and the meaning would be the same.

Next comes a difficult word which he reads as samantya, but the main portion of the second aksara in it is the same as the first, that is s in both cases. The third aksara is either tya or nya but has not enough strokes to be ntya. It appears to be tya if we compare it with tya at the beginning of line 15 and the shape of t in tac ca° (I. 16). These inferences combined give sasatya. It will be seen from the subsequent remarks on the grammatical construction of II. 13 and 14, that this word must be an indeclinable past participle, and the termination ya shews that the root must be a compound one. The only preposition possible in this word is sam. Now the right limb of the first s is continued above the top of the ltter into a small knob, which appears to represent anusvara; hence the first aksara is sam. In the middle of the second s is a thin perpendicular line which suggests that a compound consonant is intended, and if so, that can only be sm, and we may conjecture that the engraver erroneously incised only s instead of sm, and the mistake was corrected afterwards by inserting that middle line in order to make the character look as nearly like sm as was possible. Further under this sm there seem to be a faint trace as of the vowel r; but, whether that is real or not, there can be little doubt that the word intended was samsmrtya. In support of this rendering it may be pointed out that no other indeclinable past participle (as far as I am aware) can be suggested which will satisfy both the script and the sense of this passage.

The remainder of this line and the greater part of I. 14 contain many difficulties, and the key to unlock them is found in the fact that the words between samsmrtya (I. 13) and tad asmai (I. 14) compose a sloka.

He reads the first three aksaras of the sloka as sapati, but the last is ta, and the form of ti is seen in patti (II. 11, 15 and 17). The second dis not like any p in this inscription, for it has a bar along the whole of its top, whereas the general form of p is shown in the next word svapadair. This aksara must, it seems, be meant for sa, the middle horizontal bar of which has been carelessly blended with the wedge-shaped top and so gives the appearance of a continuous though not clean-cut line along the top. Something of such carelessness may be seen in visaya (I. 6) and especially in chesam (I. 16). I read these three aksaras then as sa sata, and in explanation of sata would suggest that it is an irregular instrumental case of the numeral sas, ‘six,’ declined in the singular after the analogy of the higher numerals. The correct instrumental sadbhih would suit the metre perfectly, but might have been beyond the learning of the person who composed this grant, for the Sanskrit contains many errors. This suggestion has its difficulties, yet in support of it I may add that no other reading of the second character yields any sense. I may also point out that a similar irregular formation occurs in grant A in anaih (I.22), which is probably meant for ebhih; and, as the correct word was apparently beyond the composer’s learning, he coined anaih from anena after the analogy of sivena and sivaih.

The next three words are clearly svapadair justa rajno. The remainder of this line consists of three words of which the last two are certainly artha-nisphala, though the last two aksaras are somewhat blurred. The first word which consists of two aksaras is difficult. The first letter is certainly a soft consonant (because rajnah has become rajno before it) and appears to be dh or bh with a faint indication of the vowel a. The second is a double consonant, but peculiar. Babu R.D. Banerji read it as rmma, but it is not like m and there is no a; yet if so taken it can only be rmma. It seems to me however to be vya; compare it with the v in °vartha (I. 14). The two aksaras would therefore be dharma as his reading would stand then, or bhavya as I take them. This word and the next then read dharmmartha or bhavy-artha. In favour of his reading it may be noted that dharmmartha (or rather dharmmartha, as it would have to be amended, and as he amends it) would correspond to arthadharmma in the second half of the sloka in I. 14; but against it are the arguments (1) that the first aksara has traces of a and the second has none, and (2) that there is no instance here in which m as the second member of a compound consonant is written incompletely as a subscribed character, for its right limb is always carried up to the top as in dharma and asmai (I. 14). On the other hand bhavy-artha satisfies the conditions, for it has a in the first aksara, and y as the second member of a compound consonant is sometimes written wholly as a subscript character; compare samsmrtya (I. 13), bhogyi (I. 14) and prakalpya (I. 15), in all which words he agrees that there is a subscript y; and further it is not necessary there should be precise parallelism regarding dharma and artha in lines 13 and 14. The reading therefore appears to be bhavy-artha-nisphala.

Lin 14. He reads the first six aksaras as icchato vya(?)-krta. The first is puzzling, but the others are tsa-bhogyi-krta, for the second has no c in it but is t with a subscript s; the third is bho, the rounded left limb being characteristic of bh as in bhavata(m) (I.9) vyavaharibhih (I. 13), etc.; and the fourth is gyi, as shewn by comparing g in nrga (I. 1), °yogaya (I. 11), naga (I. 15), etc., and the vowel I in Kesavadin (I. 15), sima (I. 20), etc. The first aksara is not I nor I, for it is different from I in icchami (I. 10), and neither of those vowels can with tsa form an intelligible word; and the word must be intelligible because it occurs in a sloka quoted. It resembles no particular letter, and the letters which it suggests, namely, p, l and s, produce no intelligible word. We must therefore see what word is possible in this sloka, which contrasts well-cultivated land with land infested by wild animals. Now there are only two letters which with tsa make a word, namely, ma and va. Matsa is inadmissible; it is a rare form of matsya and makes nonsense of this passage. Vatsa therefore is the only possible word, and it yields a good and striking meaning. It must be admitted that the character is not va not even ba, and I can only suggest that the engraver has bungled the letter. Bungled letters will be found in grant B; see my Article, p. 199.

The next word is bhumir and not bhumim, for there is no anusvara over the mi, and there is an r above the following nr. The succeeding words are nrpasyaivartha-dharmma-kr. Here the sloka ends, and the following words tad asmai, etc., introduce a new sentence. Kr cannot end a word, and it is obvious that the word intended is krt, and that the final t has been forgotten coming as it does in connexion with the following tad.

The sloka then stands thus: --

Sa sata svapadair justa rajno bhavy-artha-nisphala
Vatsa-bhogyi-krta bhumir nrpasyaivartha-dharma-krt.
where (as I conjecture) sata stands for an original sadbhih.

In the remainder of this line vrahmana is a mistake for vrahmanaya, and dayatam for diyatam. The declension of brahmana appears to have puzzled some of the local scholars, for in grant B the dative is brahmana in I. 20, as it is here, and brahmane in I. 11. This suggests that in ordinary parlance the final a had disappeared, and the word was pronounced Brahman and was sometimes treated as a base ending in an. The suggestion is supported by a converse process that we find, Sanskrit bases ending in in are treated sometimes as if they had a final a, thus grant A has svaminasya and adhyayinasya (I. 19) as genitives. Hence it seems a fair inference that the final Sanskrit a was generally dropped in the ordinary language, as it is at the present day.

Line 15. The reading is not kulacaran but kula-varan, the third letter being a v as in the preceding Kesavadin.

Line 16. The second word is not ksitra but ksettra, the vowel being an e. The third word is rightly read as kulya. The next words are vapa-ttrayamm apasya, the t being doubled with the r as is generally done here and in the other grants, and a superfluous anusvara being wrongly placed over the ya. The remaining letters are not vyaghracora koyacchi patacca bhuhsima but vyaghra-corako yac chesam tac catuh-sima-; the vowel over the cch is e and not I; the next letter is a badly formed sa and not pa, for p has no bar at the top of its right limb; and over this sa is an anusvara which is slightly displaced to the left because the aksara lpya in the preceding line prevents its being placed in its proper position. What he reads as bhu is tu formed rather carelessly, for the left limb has the curve that t always has in this inscription (see for instance the t in tac ca immediately preceding), whereas that limb in bh is always curved the other way (see remarks above on I. 14). His conjecture therefore about patacca (p. 434) is unnecessary.

Line 17. The reading is Supratika-svaminah, and not Supratika-svaminah, though this is probably a printer’s error.

Line 19. He reads jogika, but the word is jotika for the second letter has not the bar at the bottom of its left limb that g always has; and similarly his reading koga further on should be kota. He reads candravarmma, but there is no r over the last aksara, and the third aksara seems to be ca, for it is far more like the ca in the preceding candra and in cattrah and pisaca (I. 18) than the va in purvvasyam and Vidya (I. 18), etc. This word is in my opinion Candracampa. His reading uttarena, though correct Sanskrit, is not what the plate has, for it has uttarena plainly.

Line 20. The reading is not candra but cattra; it is the same word as cattrah in I. 18. His reading sasthi should be sasti, for the second aksara is st and not sth, the form of which is shown in visthaya(m) in I. 22.

Line 21. He reads va after canumanta, but it is ca like the ca in that word. It is no doubt a mistake for ca or perhaps va. The last word is vaset and not vaseta, for there is under the t a line which is evidently a virama. At the end the plate shows a single bar clearly, so that a double one has not to be supplied.

Line 22. The first word is not sva-dattam but sva-datam, as the t is not double; this is an error of course. His reading vasundharam should be vasundharam, for the s has not only its right limb extended downwards to denote u, as in Supratika (II. 5 and 17), but also a curve added thereto which makes the long u. This of course is another error. The reading is visthaya(m) and not vistaya(m); see remarks above on I. 20. He places a bar at the end of this line, but there is none in the original, and there can be none because the sloka does not end here.

Line 23. The reading is pacyate and not pacyati, the vowel mark being e rather than i. He reads samvat, but the third aksara is not a single t nor has it a virama, but it contains three well-marked downward strokes which can only denote a doubled t, as in pravarttaniya (I. 10), Jivadattas (I. 4), etc., or the consonants ts. The true reading therefore is either samvatta or samvatsa. The former is inadmissible, hence the word must be samvatsa, and in fact there are traces of lines at the bottom of the aksara which indicate that the word is samvatsa, short for samvatsare, the final syllable being omitted as in Kartti and di. This ts may be compared with ts in vatsa (I. 14).

The first numeral is not 30 as he reads it, but 10 as I take it and as Dr. Hoernle and Dr. Bloch also read it. It is formed like the letter la with a hook (like the vowel sign r) beneath it. The sign for 30, when made like la, has no hook beheath it; whereas the sign for 10 was sometimes made like la or la and then had the hook beneath it. The difference is clearly shown in Buhler’s Indische Paleographie, Table IX, where the various signs for 10 and 30 are given; and this sign for 10 is figured twice in col. xiii, once in col. xvi, and again in col. xix. Precisely the same sign occurs also at the end of grant C. The reading is therefore samvatsa(re) 10 4, that is 14. The word samvatsara shews that the year does not belong to any era, but means the regnal year of Samacaradeva. The date is given similarly in grants A and C.

TRANSLATION.

Welfare! While the supreme king of great kings, Sri-Samacaradeva, who is without rival on this earth and who is equal in steadfastness to Nrga, Nahusa, Yayati and Ambarisa, is glowing in majesty, the Uparika Jivadatta is the privy minister appointed over the suvarna-vothya1 [See remarks, p. 487 below.] in New Avakasika, which he obtained through paying court to the pair of lotus-like feet of this monarch. Pavittruka is the lord of the district in Varaka province, which is caused to rejoice by that Uparika.

Whereas, according to this lord’s practice,2 [I read the emendation vyavaharatah; but vyavaharatah of the text would give the meaning “while he is conducting the business of government.”] Supratika-svamin informed the district government, wherein the oldest official Damuka is the chief, and the leading man of the district Vatsa-kunda, the leading man Suci-palita, the leading man Vihita-ghosa, and the local (?)3 [As regards svarada (?), see p. 488 below.] leading man Priya-datta, the leading man Janardana-kunda and other leading men, and many other principal men of business, thus—“I wish through your honours’ favour for a piece of waste land which has long lain neglected1 [According to the emendation circavasanna.]; and do ye deign to do me that as a favour, after making a copper-plate grant of it to me for my employment as a Brahman to be engaged in offering the bali, the caru, and sacrifices.”

Wherefore the men of business who are the above-mentioned ______________2 [I cannot suggest any word which will fit the blank where the letters are obliterated at the end of line 12. ] of Santha, having entertained this request, and having called to mind the verse—“That land, which is reveled in by the six kinds of wild beasts,3 [Perhaps tigers, leopards, hyenas, bears, wild boar and buffaloes. The verse is a general statement.] is unprofitable as regards the wealth that should accrue to the king: land, when made enjoyable by young animals,4 [The idea is that the land should be so safe that no danger could befall anything young.] produces wealth and righteousness indeed to the king;” and having decided, “hence let it be given to this Brahman”; and having constituted the karanikas Naya-naga, Kesava and others the arbitrators;5 [Or referees. This word kulavara is discussed in my article on the three other grants (p. 205).] and having put aside the three kulya-sowing-areas of cultivated land which have been previously granted away by a copper-plate;6 [This is the literal translation if we read krta instead of krtya at the beginning of I. 16; and if we retain krtya, the meaning is the same, though the construction is less elegant.] and having defined the four boundary-indications of the remaining land which is in the ‘Tiger’s char,’7 [This is the translation if we read corake in I. 16; but, if we retain corako, the translation is “the four boundary-indications of what is the remainder, namely, the ‘Tiger’s char’” – which does not say what it is the remainder of.] have bestowed it on this Supratika-svamin by executing a copper-plate grant.

And the boundary-indications are these. On the east, the goblin-haunted parkatti8 [The waved-leaf fig-tree, Ficus infectoria.] tree; on the south, Vidyadhara’s cultivating-tenure;9 [Jotika. This is not Sanskrit. It is obviously a word formed from jota, and I am inclined to read jota as equivalent to the modern word jot, “the land-tenure belong to a cultivating raiyat,” though the t’s are different. Some such meaning seems obviously required here. Jot, as it is written and pronounced in Bengali (though it is also written yot and pronounced jot), is a word of doubtful derivation. Some derive it from the Sanskrit root yu or yuj, though the connexion in meaning is difficult. The Bengali dictionary, Prakriti-bad Abhidhan, says it is a foreign word (Persian or such like), but this seems erroneous. It is probably an indigenous term; and as an indigenous t wavered between Sanskrit t and t (see Beames’ Comparative Grammar, vol. I, p. 219; Hoernle’s Grammar of the Gaudian languages, pp. 8-10) the original word might appear as jota when Sanskritized here or as jot in modern Bengali. Indeed I have heard the word jot pronounced with a t sound intermediate between t and t.] on the west, Candracampa’s hut-tent;10 [Kota means a ‘hut.’ There is no Sanskrit word kena, but there is a word kenika, a ‘tent,’ and it is an obvious formation from a simpler word such as kena. Kota-kena therefore means a ‘hut-like tent’ or ‘tent-like hut,’ such as is used to this day by low wandering castes.] on the north, Gopendra’s char and the boundary of the village.

And here apply the verses 1 [Plural, but only one verse is cited.] – “Whoever confiscates land that has been granted away by himself or granted away by another, he becoming a worm in his own2 [The more usual reading is sa or sva- instead of sva-. With sa the meaning is—“he becoming a worm in ordure”; and with sva- -- “he becoming a worm in a dog’s ordure.”] ordure rots along with his ancestors.”

In the regnal year 14; the first day of Karttika.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

NOTES ON THE TRANSLATION.

The mandala or province was Varaka in all the grants, and in addition to what has been said about Varendra in my article (p. 209), I may mention that Varendra was sometimes regarded as a part of Gauda-desa, for at the end of the description of the Purana-sarvasva MSS., numbered 143-4 in Aufrecht’s Bodleian Catalogue, a notice of its author is inserted which hbegins thus (p. 87) – Gaude Srividite Varendra-visaye, etc.

The capital of the province was New Avakasika as mentioned in that article (p. 22), and it is this grant which makes it clear, because the references to it in grants B and C leave uncertain what is meant by the term. At this time Jivadatta was the Uparika and ruler of the province and resided in New Avakasika, being a successor of the Uparika Nagadeva mentioned in grants B and C, for I agree with Babu R.D. Banerji (as will be shown later) in placing this grant later than the three others. He conducted a special branch of the administration, for he is called “the antaranga appointed over the suvarna-vothya in New Avakasika.” Antar-anga means “an inner member” and appears to denote a member of the inner council of the king. Suvarna-vothya seems to me, not a place because it was in New Avakasika, but some branch of the administration, as will be seen on comparing the corresponding passages in grants B and C. In both of those the Uparika Nagadeva had the office of “chief warden of the gate,” an din C he had been also appointed principal minister of trade (pp. 201, 205). Suvarna means gold, but vothya is not Sanskrit and must be some Prakrit or indigenous term Sanskritized. I cannot explain it, and can only suggest that it may mean something like ‘exchequer,’ and, if so, that the Uparika had charge of the Revenues or Finances.

Within the Varaka province were a number of visayas or districts, and Pavitruka was the lord or governor (pati) of the district in which this grant was made, as Jajava was in grant A (p. 195). It appears that under him the local administration continued to be, as in grants B and C, conducted by a Board of officials, in which the chief was the oldest official named Damuka.

The mahattaras were the local leading men, as explained in my article (p. 213), and this title with the word vara added, that is mahattaravara, is I conjecture the term from which has been derived the word matabbar or matabar, the title now given in Chittagong and East Bengal to the headmen of a village (p. 213, note). The expression which I read tentatively as svarada in I. 7 seems to imply a distinction from the word visaya in I. 6. The latter word is prefixed to the three mahattaras Vatsakunda, Sucipalita and Vihitaghosa, while svarada (?) is prefixed to the mahattaras Priyadatta and Janardanakunda. If one may venture a conjecture on this apparent distinction, it may be suggested that perhaps there were two classes of leading men, visaya-mahattaras and svarada (?) – mahattaras, the latter having a more local status than the former.

This copper-plate was found, as stated by Mr. Stapleton in his Prefatory note to Babu R.D. Banerji’s article, in the mauza of Ghagrahati, which adjoins Pinjuri on the south-west and borders on the river Ghagar, in the south-west corner of the Faridpur district. Some interesting inferences may be drawn by studying the local allusions in this grant with the aid of the Revenue Survey map of this region (on the scale of one inch to a mile).

The names of most significance are Vyaghra-coraka and Gopendra-coraka. The word coraka in them is an interesting one. It is clearly not Sanskrit, for the Sanskrit word coraka means only “a thief; a kind of plant; a kind of perfume”; and none of those meanings are appropriate here. There can be no doubt that it is the Sanskritized form of the common Bengali word [x], which is well known in its Anglicized form ‘char’ or ‘chur,’ any ‘alluvial formation thrown up in or at the side of a river-bed.’ Such chars are common in all rivers of any importance, and vary in size and character from a mere spit of unproductive sand o an extensive deposit of rich and fertile soil. The rivers of Bengal have always carried down large quantities of silt, and have always shifted their beds, the silt being deposited and forming chars wherever the current is slack. These chars are so important a feature of the riverine tracts that they must have had a name from the earliest times, and there can be no doubt that in coraka we have the Sanskrit form of the then vernacular word for ‘char.’ Chars, if of considerable size, are named, and the two names mentioned in this inscription are such as might be given at the present day, namely, “the Tiger’s char” (in Bengali [x] or [x]) and “Gopendra’s char.” This “Tiger’s char” was a large one, because a previous grant of three “kulya-sowing” areas of cultivated land had been made out of it, and by this grant the remainder was given to Supratika-svamin. In the article on the other grants the meaning of a “kulya-sowing area” has been discussed, and reasons have been adduced for estimating it at about an acre or three standards bighas (pp. 214-6). Hence the “Tiger’s char” was more than thrice that size and presumably contained a good deal more than nine bighas. A char of this size could only be formed in a rather large river; hence this char and Gopendra’s char were on the side of a rather large river, which corresponded therefore to the modern Ghagar. The map shows no trace at present that the Ghagar was connected northwards with the Ganges, yet it may have been so in early times, because the configuration of the Ghagar and the other water-ways near it favours this view, and it is well-known that river-beds have been completely silted up and obliterated.

Samtha or Santha is not a Sanskrit word, and can only, it seems, be the name of the place where this grant was made. It is stated the land was given by the vyavaharins or men of business who (as I read the passage) belonged to Santha. This word vyavaharin deserves notice, for nothing is said about villagers, and it suggests that Santa was not an ordinary agricultural village, but was rather a business place. As the chars were alongside it, it was evidently in close proximity to the river Ghagar. Hence it seems a fair inference, that Santa was a trading centre for ships and boats, and that the vyavaharins were the local merchants. I do not find any name resembling Santa in the map, but, as this copper-plate was found in Ghagrahati, one may reasonably presume it was found in its original site and that Ghagrahati is the modern name of the old Sana. This is supported by some further considerations; hence it appears that this grant should property be called the Ghagrahati grant.

Ghagrahati means “the village (or locality) of the hat (mart) on the Ghagar,” and proves that there was once a hat or mart at this place, though it has apparently long ceased to exist; and the fact, that the village took its name from the hat and not the hat from the village, shows that a trading mart was first founded here on the Ghagar, and that the village grew up from it. This accords well with the predominance assigned to the vyavaharins in this grant. A mart so situated was well placed as a trade centre for all the south west portion of the (Faridpur) district. It was connected with the sea by the fine water-way in the R. Madhumati and the Haringhata estuary, and the small ships of those days could have reached it readily. Such ships penetrated further inland for they are referred to in grant A (I. 24-5, and p. 198, note).

The existing hats are situated more northward. The present Ghagarhat, “the hat on the Ghagar,” is some three miles to the north; and there are besides Pinjuri-hat about a mile to the north-east, and Parkuna-hat about four miles to the north. The noteworthy point here is that “the hat on the Ghagar” has been shifted northwards. It was originally in Ghagrahati as the name testifies, and although this mauza still retains its name, the hat which give it its name has been moved to the north. What was the reason for the removal? I venture to suggest the following explanation.

The map shows that all the country adjoining Ghagrahati on the south and south-west is now bil or “marsh.” It is not likely that the ancient hat on the Ghagar would have been placed in proximity to a marsh, when excellent sites were available a little further northward. Elsewhere1 [In my “Revenue History of the Sundarbans” and in an article on the Sundarbans in the Calcutta Review in or about 1889. I cannot give more precise references as those publications are not beside me.] I have adduced reasons to show that there have been local subsidences of the land in the northern middle portion f the Sundarban region, sufficient to turn land that was of ordinarily elevation into marsh, and it is highly probable that some such subsidence took place in the southern tract of the Ghagar, because a large area south and south-west of Ghagrahati is now marsh. It may be inferred therefore that, when the hat was established in Ghagrahati, all the country around it was of good elevation, and that when the land subsided, the hat with the same name Ghagra-hat was moved northwards to a better situation, while the village around the old site remained with the name Ghagrahati. If this explanation is valid, one can well understand that this copper-plate might have been abandoned, where it has been found, as being no longer of any value; and that it was really a Ghagrahati grant.

Further, from the considerations put forward in my article on the other grants (p. 209) and from what is known of the course of Sundarban forest reclamation,2 [See my “Revenue History of the Sundarbans.”] it is very probable that the Sundarban forest could not have been very far from this spot at the time of this grant; and this is supported by the pointed reference to wild beasts in lines 13 and 14. Hence it seems that Santha could hardly have been a town, but was presumably something like what Morelganj, which is further south, was 60 or 70 years ago.

Character of the Grant.

The place therefore being an outlying mart was not one where Brahmans of position would particularly choose to settle in. Supratika-svamin does not appear to have been a Brahman of position, for nothing is said about his lineage or attainments, such as we find in the other grants. In A the grantee Candra-svamin was of the lineage of Bharadvaja, was a Vajasaneya and studied the six Angas. In B and C the grantees Soma-svamin and Gomidatta-svamin were of the lineage of Kanva, were Vajasaneyas, are styled Lauhityas and are commended as virtuous. It appears from the tenor of this grant, that Supratika-svamin had come to this place and was willing, if he could get some land, to settle in it and perform religious rites. The matter was transacted between him and the vyavaharins who resided her. Nothing is said about the villagers taking any part in it. Information of the proposed transaction had to be given to the adhikarana and the mahattaras, as has been noticed in my article (p. 214), but it is stated clearly that it was the vyavaharins who accepted his proposal and gave him the land. The arrangement therefore was one entirely between him and them. There was no grantor who bought the land and bestowed it on a grantee as in the three other plates; but he asked for some land as a consideration for his undertaking as a Brahman to offer the bali, caru and sacrifices, and they accepted his proposal. It was no case of purchase, but a free gift by the vyavaharins on condition that he should perform priestly functions. The general terms used imply that he was to become priest to them generally, and that there was no other Brahman in the place. Here then we have an instance of the way in which Brahmans moved onwards and settled as priests in new places which had reached a position to need their services.

The arrangement was made with the cognizance of the adhikarana and in the presence of the mahattaras, and the seal of the adhikarana would have been affixed to this plate as it was to the other grants. The curved shape of the left-hand margin of the inscription in all the grants shows, that this plate was made to receive a round seal fastened on its front as the other grants still have, and that the triangular hole, which Babu R.D. Banerji comments on (p. 434), was made to enable the seal to be soldered through the hole on to the back of the plate. The fastening has decayed and the seal has been lost.

Supratika-svamin asked for a piece of waste land, and what was given him was the remainder of the “Tiger’s char.” As it was not bought from any one, but the vyavaharins gave it, it must have been the common property of the vyava-harins, if not of the whole village; and was therefore land somewhat similar to that in grant A, as explained in my article (p. 214). It was waste char and therefore land of recent formation; hence no reference was apparently necessary to the record-keeper as in the other grants (p. 213). As there was no purchase but the remainder of the char was given, it was unnecessary to measure the area as in those grants (p. 213). It was presumably covered with jungle in which tigers and other dangerous animals could lurk, for so much is implied by the citation of the verse, which contrasts the benefit that accrues to the king, when land is perfectly reclaimed, with what he loses when it is infested by wild beasts. It may also be inferred from that citation that the area was considerable, because the verse would not be significant, if the area was only a small patch insufficient to offer harbor to wild animals. It seems probable therefore that the remainder, which was given to Supratika-svamin, could hardly have been much less than what had been granted away previously.

Validity of the Grant.

Babu R.D. Banerji pronounces the grant spurious and bases his decision on three grounds, (1) that the forger betrayed himself by introducing archaic and obsolete letters in the script, (2) that the grant does not follow the formula of a regular grant as found in the majority of copper-plate inscriptions, and (3) that its purport is irregular, obscure, ambiguous and in parts unintelligible. I do not see the cogency of these grounds to his conclusion, and for the following reasons. He reads the date as the year 34 and, assigning it to the Harsa Era, equates it with A.D. 640-1; and the gist of his criticisms on its script is to place its real period in about the last quarter of the 7th century (p. 432), that is, only some 40 or 50 years later than its professed date. If a forger wanted to make the grant appear to be only 40 or 50 years older than it really was, it was surely unnecessary for him to introduce obsolete letters and endanger his object by rendering its purport uncertain. This remark touches his first and third grounds, and the second will be considered later. See also postscript.

The true date however is the 14th regnal year of the monarch Samacaradeva. As nothing is known of him, his regnal year is no clue towards fixing the date of the grant. We must therefore estimate its period on other grounds; but before attempting that, I must first consider whether the three grounds mentioned above are really sound.

Babu R.D. Banerji says (p. 432), “the characters used in this copper-plate inscription were collected from alphabets in use in three different centuries,” namely, the alphabets of (1) the 3rd and the first half of the 4th century, A.D., (2) the last half of the 5th century and the first half of the 6th century of North-Eastern India, and (3) the 6th century which came into general use in North-Eastern India in the early part of the 7th century. Now it is well known that old habits persist in out-of-the-way places long after they have disappeared from more important and progressive places. Hence we ought to expect that a document executed in this outlying region should show older styles of writing than would be found in contemporaneous inscriptions at Bodh Gaya and Ganjam with which he compares this grant. An interesting illustration of this divergence is found in grant C. In the body of that deed the letter s is always written in its eastern form, but on the Government seal attached thereto it has the western form. The western variety therefore had been introduced at head-quarters while the eastern variety was in general use among the people.

I will now consider the remarks which Babu R.D. Banerji makes regarding various letters in proof of his conclusion stated above.

The first letter he discusses is h (p. 430). When uncompounded h is always (except in one instance) written here in early western Gupta form shown by Buhler in his Indische Paleographie, Table IV, cols. viii to xviii, which prevailed from about A.D. 500 to 675, and even earlier in the later Brahmi alphabet: see his Table III. The one exception is in sahasrani (II. 20-21), which Babu R.D. Banerji has overlooked, and there h has the early eastern form of a hook turned to the left. It has this form also when compounded with m in vrahmana (II. 11 and 14). The early western shape is used in the Bodh Gaya inscription of Mahanaman which is dated in A.D. 588-9 (FGI. p. 274), and is found in this Faridpur district even earlier, for it occurs in grant A which belongs to about the year 531. Babu R.D. Banerji says—“In a previous number of the Journal I have tried to establish that the Eastern variety of the early Gupta alphabet was dying out in the early decades of the fifth century” (pp. 430-1); but that proposition must be revised in the light of the three grants edited by me. In grant A of 531 A.D. both forms of h are used, the eastern 9 times and the western 6 times, and it appears they were used indifferently, because both are used in the same words maharaja (I. 2), anugraha (II. 18 and 19) and Himasena (II. 23 and 25), and both occur in line 4 and again in I. 8. There hm appears in the eastern form (I. 8). In grant B, the date of which is 567 at the latest, only the western form is used throughout, even in hm (II. 9 and 20). But in grant C, which is some 20 years later, the eastern form is sued throughout and the western form does not appear at all in the portions that are legible. Those grants show clearly that the two forms were in use side by side in this region during the 6th century, and the eastern form at least a century and a half later than he estimates, and that even then the western form had attained no ascendancy over the eastern. The fact then that in this grant the western form is sued generally and the eastern once uncompounded and twice in hm is in full agreement with the other grants, and is no indication of falsity but rather a local characteristic of genuineness.

The next letter he notices is long I (p. 431). I have discussed its shape partially above (p. 479), and may here point out that it tended to vary considerably. Its various forms in grant A may be seen on comparing (to give only salient instances) Sila (I. 24), °padaniya° (I. 22), kriya (I. 8), vikriya (I. 11), sri (I. 2), grhitva (I. 8) and kirtti (I. 14). The copy of grant B on plate II does not show all details quite clearly, yet the shapes of I may be noticed in sima (I. 21) sri (I. 2), parkkrati (I. 21) and vikriya° (I. 14). Grant C is so badly corroded on its obverse that there is not the same opportunity of scrutinizing details, yet the form of I may be seen in vikkritam (I. 20), sila and sima (I. 23), sima (II. 22-3) and pratita (I. 19). There was a tendency to reduce the size of the inner curl of this vowel sign, and in these last two words and in vikriya° (grant B, I. 14) it has practically degenerated into a dot connected with the outer curve. To separate the dot and the curve would be a natural modification, as we find in this grant; and here the I sign always consists of a dot or small stroke, and a curve on its right, except in Supratika (I. 17) where their position is reversed. The form of I then in this grant is no indication that it is spurious.

His third point relates to initial I (p. 431). This occurs only once, in icchami (I. 9); and his reading of icchato (I. 14) is untenable as explained above (p. 483). The I in icchami consists of two dots, one above the other, and a perpendicular stroke on their right. There is nothing suspicious in this form, because it is used in the same word in grant A (I. 7). It occurs in inscriptions of the fourth and fifth centuries (see Buhler’s Table IV, cols. I and v), and persisted later in this outlying region.

His fourth point (p. 431), in so far as it is definite, relates to m and the bipartite y. The m’s in this grant are like those in grants B and C and are not open to distrust. I have discussed the forms of y in my article (pp. 206-7), and the form which it has in this plate is always of the third and latest style which has been figured there. The instances here present three stages in its formation. In the earliest of these the left perpendicular reaches the bottom horizontal stroke, as shown in the second y of Yayati (I. 1), visaya (I. 4) and °yogaya (I. 11); and this shape constitutes a connecting link with the second form figured in my article. The second stage is exhibited in pascimayam (I. 19), and the third in ttrayam and yac (I. 16). Similar stages may be traced in grant C in the words Kasikayam (I. 3), vikkriya° (I. 17) and yo (I. 24). This grant is therefore closely like C as regards bipartite y, and differs from it in no longer using the earlier form figured by me as the second. It thus appears that as regards both m and y there is no ground for suspicion in this grant. He adds – “The bipartite ya looks ill side by side with sa, ja and ha (when it occurs alone) in which no acute angle can be traced”; but my scrutiny of this grant does not support this statement, and letters like these in shape are found in grant C. I need not dilate on this statement.

He deals next with the letter la (p. 431). Its form here is the later western shape, and it is also found in Grant B, where for instance we may compare laddha° (I. 3), kale (I. 4), Gopala (I. 5), etc. The earlier western shape is more prevalent in grant C, in which the left limb of l is not carried to the top of the line, as we see in kula (I. 18), sila (I. 19), nalena (I. 19), lingani (I. 21), etc.; yet even there l occurs once in Dhruvilaty (I. 22) like l in this grant. In grant A all the forms of l are used indifferently; thus the eastern form appears in labdha° (I. 2), kala (I. 5), labhah (I. 13), abhilasa (I. 14), samkalpabhi (I. 14) and sila (I. 24); the earlier western form in Kula (I. 4); and a shape nearly approaching the later western form in mandale (I. 3), likhita (I. 20) and lingani (I. 23). It thus appears that both the eastern and the western forms of l were in use in this region in 531 the date of grant A, and, though the former does not occur in grants B and C, yet it may have lingered on in this remote locality, so that its use in this grant is no certain ground for disparagement.

The sixth point (p. 431) concerns the letter da (that is, da) and has been discussed above (p. 478).

Seventhly, Babu R.D. Banerji refers (p. 432) to the word parkkatti (I. 18). He objects to the form of the pa as peculiar, and says, it “does not resemble the remaining ones, which are usually rectangular in form, seldom showing an acute angle.” This p however has the same shape as that in pravarttaniya (I. 10), nrpasya (I. 14) and pisaca (I. 18); and p in several cases varies from the rectangular shape, in prasada (I. 11), pari° (I. 12), Supratika and patti (I. 17) and pitrbhi (I. 22). He adds, “the earliest occurrence of this form of pa is to be found in inscriptions of the seventh and eighth centuries A.D.;” but the acute-angled shape is found in the Bodh Gaya inscription of Mahanaman of 588-9 (FGI. p. 274), and is figured as earlier by Buhler in his Table IV, col. ix. Most stress however is laid on the second aksara rkka, which he says “consists of two looped kas and a superscript ra;” but the upper k is not looped as shown in the plate published with his article, and only the second is looped. Precisely this form of doubled k is found in the Bodh Gaya inscription of 588-9; and therefore his remark that “this form of ka becomes fairly common from the last quarter of the seventh century A.D. and afterwards” (p. 432) needs modification. There is nothing objectionable therefore in the forms of pa and rkka in this grant.

I have now considered all his criticisms on the script in this grant, and have shown that the features which he distrusts are to be found in other almost contemporaneous inscriptions which are genuine; so that as regards the script there is nothing suspicious in this grant.

In stating his second ground for discrediting this grant he points out that it differs from the formula found in the majority of copper-plate inscriptions (p. 432). I need not examine the formula, because he refers to grants in which the donor is a royal person; whereas this grant is, as explained above (p. 491), not a royal grant but a grant by the businessmen of Santha of a part of the common land of their village. Hence that formula can have no application here, and the procedure was quite different. What the formalities on such occasions were has been discussed in my article (p. 214) and noticed above (p. 491), and the same procedure was observed in this grant as in the three others. Hence his strictures on its form (p. 433) are misplaced.

One important point must be kept in mind in construing ancient grants. It is a fact well known to all Revenue Officers, that, when gifts of land were made in old times, they might be granted either subject to the land-tax due to the sovereign, or exempt therefrom; that is, they might be (in modern Revenue language) either ‘revenue-payng’ or ‘revenue-free.’ It was no doubt to guard the royal revenues from being endangered that the parties to a grant were required to give notice to the Government. Neither the king nor his high officials could attend every small grant such as these were, and it would seem that the mahattaras attended as representatives of the local administration at the transaction.

Babu R.D. Banerji points out that grants might be forged, and cites an instance mentioned in the Madhuban Plate of Harsa (Epig. Ind. VII, 155). Certainl grants were sometimes forged, but the particulars and circumstances of that case and this grant are altogether different. In that case the Brahman, who held the kuta-sasana, claimed a whole village under it. What he did was obviously this. He did not dispossess the inhabitants and cultivators of the village (for he could not cultivate the lands himself and certainly did not depopulate it) and they remained, but he imposed himself upon them as lord of the village. All that he would have claimed from them was the various taxes and dues payable by them and, as they were bound to pay those, he would not have interfered with their life and ways more than the sovereign’s own officers who levied those demands, unless he exacted more. The position of the villagers therefore remained unaffected, and the person who suffered was the king, because the whole, or at least a part, of the revenue might have been intercepted by the false grantee. It was therefore for the king to annul the false grant, and not for the villagers to contest it.

The particulars and circumstances of this grant however were altogether different, as has been already explained. It is incredible that a poor Brahman of no position, who wanted only a parcel of waste land for his personal occupation, could have foisted himself into this village by forging a copper-plate grant for a piece of char land as having been given to him by the business-men of the village. If he attempted such a fraud, he would have set the whole village up in arms against himself, and his claim would have been instantly disproved by the inhabitants and the mahattaras. Further, such a deed, if forged forty or fifty years after its alleged date to support a claim to this piece of land, would have been wholly futile, because it would have been refuted by the fact, which every villager would have known, that he had not been in possession of the land during those years. In fact, this grant was a natural agreement between the people and the Brahman for their mutual benefit, and its very pettiness shews it cannot be spurious. Moreover it is expressly said that the cultivation of waste land increases the king’s revenue.

Babu R.D. Banerji’s third ground deals with the meaning of this grant. He says the wording “is very ambiguous” (p. 433), and “The contents of lines 12 and 13 are quite unintelligible. Here and there words of Sanskritic origin are to be found mixed up with what seems to be unintelligible gibberish” (pp. 433-4). I venture to think that my reading and translation redeem the grant from this condemnation, and render it not only clear and intelligible but also remarkably vivid in its local references; and that they shew that the word tamrapatta is not open to the stricture which he passes on it (p. 434).

There are certainly some words which are not proper Sanskrit, but their use, so far from being suspicious, is only what might be expected when local conditions peculiar to this outlying region had to be put into Sanskrit dress. There could not be Sanskrit equivalents for every vernacular term, and the only course open was to Sanskritize those terms. Further, it would have been surprising, if a good scholar had been found in this remote spot, and suspicious if this petty grant had been drawn up in correct Sanskrit. The peculiar words here are vothya (I. 3), svarada ? (I. 7), sata (I. 13), coraka (II. 16 and 20), jotika and kena (I. 19). As regards svarada (?) no explanation can be attempted, because (as already mentioned, p. 480) it is doubtful what word was written; still a meaning has been suggested which seems possible. Kena has a corresponding secondary form in Sanskrit. For sata an explanation has been put forward which is based upon substantial grounds and is appropriate. Coraka is a vernacular word Sanskritized, and so I think is jotika, and probably vothya also and for these three words meaning have been suggested which are perfectly suitable.

Peculiar words are also found in the three other grants. Thus grant A has sadhanika1 [I have to thank Babu R.D. Banerji for pointing out that sadhanika occurs also in other grants in the forms Dausadhanika, Dausadhasadhanika, etc.] (II. 7, 15), sal (I. 19) and kseni (I. 25); B has karardaya (I. 5) and dandaka (I. 23) and probably the local title mridha Sanskritized (see my article, p. 202, note 18); C has apparently vyaparandya (I. 3); and apavinchya occurs in all of them (A, I. 16; B, I. 19; C, I. 19).

All the grounds on which Babu R.D. Banerji has pronounced this grant to be spurious have been examined, and it appears that the particulars which he considers open to distrust are not really suspicious, and that the grant has all the marks of genuineness in the character of its script, the form in which it is drawn up, and its purport. I am therefore of opinion that it is not spurious but perfectly genuine and valid.

Date of the Grant.

There are some data to enable us to fix approximately the period in which this grant was made and in which the king Samacaradeva reigned.

First, we have the shapes of the letters k, y and s, and the disappearance of the character for b.

The disappearance of this character, which is sued in grants A and B and perhaps in C, has been discussed above (p. 477) and shews that this grant must be later than A and B and probably later than C also.

The shape of y is in Dr. Hoernle’s opinion, as mentioned in my article (p. 207), an important criterion for determining the age of writings from the fifth to the seventh century A.D. Its shape in this grant is the third of the three kinds discussed in my article (p. 206) and is similar to that in grant C; but this grant is later than C, because (1) the second kind of y which appears in C does not occur here, and (2) the third form has almost reached its full development here.

In the body of all the other grants the letter s is written in the eastern form, but in the government seal attached to C it has the western form as already mentioned (p. 493). The corresponding seals on A and B are too much corroded to permit of its shape being ascertained. The people therefore used the eastern form, though the western had been introduced at head-quarters, and some time would be required before the latter would oust the former from general use. In this grant we have a later stage because only the western form is used.

On these three grounds therefore this grant is later than C, and the date of C is 586 at the latest and may be five or ten years earlier.

The first inscription in which the looped form of k was used in Eastern India is, I believe, the Bodh Gaya inscription of Mahanaman of 588-9 (FGI, p. 274), and some time must have elapsed before it reached this outlying region since it does not appear in the other grants.

These four considerations suggest that this grant must be later than 586 and 588-9 A.D. The question, how much later it was, depends on what may be considered a sufficient interval to permit of all these modifications establishing themselves in this remote locality. I do not think we can estimate a shorter period than some thirty years, and if so, this grant might be assigned to the latter part of the first quarter of the seventh century.

Next, we may consider the reference to the king Samacaradeva. Though nothing is known of him, there seems to be no good reason to doubt the genuineness of the name, because the grant is genuine; and even if it were spurious, no forger would be so foolish as to date it in the reign of a king who never existed, especially if (according to Babu R.D. Banerji’s arguments) it was fabricated no very long time after its professed date. The name moreover is a possible one, being analogous to the royal names Dharmaditya and Siladitya and personal names such as Gunadeva.

The description of Samacaradeva suggests certain inferences. The earlier emperor Dharmaditya in grant A, though styled only maharajadhiraja (I. 2), is yet alluded to as parama-bhattaraka (I. 13); and has in grant B both the former title and also battaraka (I. 2). In grant C Gopacandra, who may have been a descendant of the Guptas as suggested in my article (p. 208), received the same two titles, and he reigned in Bengal as an independent monarch after the dissolution of Dharmaditya’s empire. Here Samacaradeva is styled only maharajadhiraja. Further, it is stated in grant A that Sthanudatta was the maharaja of this province and was subordinate to the emperor Dharmaditya. In grant B, which was later in that emperor’s reign, the local maharaja had ceased to exist; but in grant C Gopacandra appears as the local monarch when the empire broke up. Similarly in this grant Samacaradeva is the local monarch, and no one is mentioned as his superior. Hence it appears that he was an independent king of Bengal.

Now Bengal was subject to Harsa in the second quarter of the seventh century, and Harsa, “when at the height of his power, exercised a certain amount of control as suzerain over the whole of Bengal, even as far east as the distant kingdom of Kamarupa, or Assam, and seems to have possessed full sovereign authority over western and central Bengal.” (V. Smith, History, 2nd ed., p. 366). But he could not have established his supremacy in this eastern region till some years after his accession and after he had subdued the rest of North India, that is, probably not until about 620 or even 625. The date might be even later, because he continued fighting for many years and was engaged in a campaign against Ganjam as late as 643 (ibid., p. 313). His empire lasted till his death in 646-7.1 [Mr. V. Smith tells me that this year is the correct date of Harsa’s death, and not 647-8.] After his decease it fell to pieces. “After his death the local Rajas no doubt asserted their independence” and very little is known concerning the history of Bengal for nearly a century (ibid., p. 366).

There were independent kings therefore in Bengal before Harsa extended his supremacy over it, and again after his death; and Samacaradeva must be placed either in the first quarter of the seventh century before Harsa’s conquest, or in the third or fourth century after his empire decayed. The latter alternative is not probable, because of the character of the script in this grant. It has been pointed out that this grant exhibits the eastern forms of certain letters, which, though ousted by the western forms generally, yet remained in use in this remote locality. They might have continued till the first quarter of that century as shewn above (p. 499), but could hardly have persisted about half a century longer (till the fourteenth year of a new king after the dissolution of the empire), because Harsa’s supremacy over Bengal would have facilitated the predominance of the western forms and hastened the disuse of the eastern forms. It may be reasonably inferred therefore, that Samacaradeva reigned in the first quarter of the seventh century.

There is another consideration which supports this inference. The king of Pundravardhana, that is Bengal, whose kingdom was more or less subject to Harsa, belonged to the Brahman caste, as Mr. V. Smith says (History, p. 329)2 [Mr. V.Smith tells me he is unable at present to cite the authority for this statement. Possibly therefore an argument may not be based confidently on it, yet the existence of a Samacaradeva, king of Bengal or Pundravardhana, probably at this very time, suggests that the dynasty did belong to the Brahman caste.] now this (Faridpur) district would have appertained to Pundravardhana, and the termination deva in names often designated Brahmans. In the name Samacaradeva deva is not a separate word or title as it often is in royal appellations, but forms a real compound with samacara. Hence it seems probable that Samacaradeva was a Brahman, and was a king of the Pundravardhana dynasty which was reigning when Harsa conquered Bengal.

The conclusions then which seem fairly established are, (1) that this grant was later than C which was executed in the year 586 (at the latest), an d(2) that it was prior to Harsa’s subjugation of Bengal, which may be assigned to about the years 620-5, or perhaps later. These conclusions coupled with the inference drawn from the script, that the grant belongs probably to the latter part of the first quarter of the seventh century, lead me to assign it to about the years 615-20 A.D. Between the two dates 586 (at the latest) and 620-5 there is room for two or three independent kings in Bengal after the death of Gopacandra, whose nineteenth year was the former of those dates; and it seems probable that Samacaradeva was one of them, possibly the immediate predecessor of the Pundravardhana king who was Harsa’s vassal, and that the commencement of his reign may be placed approximately in the years 601-5 A.D.

Names in the Grants.

Some interesting conclusions may apparently be drawn from the names mentioned in all these grants.

The names of the mahattaras in this inscription do not appear to be genuine compound words in which the component parts depend on one another, such as Dharmaditya, Sthanudatta and Kulacandra in grant A (II. 2-4), but seem to consist merely of two separate words in juxtaposition. Hence we may with full propriety write them as Vatsa Kunda, Suci Palita, Vihita Ghosa, Priya Datta and Janardana Kunda; and perhaps Jiva Datta may be so treated. Hence it appears that in these names we have four of the caste-surnames which are common in Bengal now, namely, Kunda (modern Kundu), Palit, Ghosh and Datt. A caste-name karanika is mentioned (I. 15). Karanika is not classical Sanskrit, but is evidently a word formed from karana which was the name of a mixed caste that had the occupation of writing, accounts, etc. (Dicty.); hence karanika apparently meant a member of this caste. This caste was presumably either the same as, or closely akin to, the kayastha caste. The position of senior member of the Board was in grants B and C held by the then oldest kayastha named Naya Sena. As this grant is later than those, it is worthy of note that, whereas the modern name kayastha is mentioned in grants B and C, the name used in this later grant is karanika, a title which is not used now. Where a person’s caste is mentioned, the surname is sometimes omitted, as in the case of the karanikas, for, while one is named Naya Naga (Nag is another modern surname), the other is called simply Kesava (I. 15). It seems a fair inference that the second parts of these names were established as caste-surnames at the time of this inscription.

But in the other grants this feature is not so clear. Many persons are mentioned in A, but none can be resolved into a clear personal name and surname except Vi[na]ya Sena and Hima Sena. Sen is a well-known caste-surname in Bengal now. In grant B few names are mentioned, and there is not much scope for scrutiny, yet two can be resolved, Naya Sena and Soma Ghosa. Grant C is so much corroded that, though apparently many names were mentioned, few can be deciphered now; yet two are divisible, the same Naya Sena and Visaya Kunda (?). This grant therefore shows a greater development of the caste-surname than the three earlier grants, and if that method of naming was fairly prevalent in this outlying district, it was presumably in more general vogue in the central part of the province. It seems therefore probable that the use of caste-surnames, which is universal at the present day in Bengal, was becoming generally adopted in the early part of the seventh century.

POSTSCRIPT

After this article was in the press another reading of this Ghagrahati grant was published in the Report of the Archaeological Survey of India for 1907-8, p. 255. It is by the late Dr. T. Bloch, and he pronounced the grant to be a forgery, although it appears from his article that a great deal of the inscription baffled him; for instance, he says (p. 256) – “The grammar of the inscription, especially the syntax, is in such a bad state of confusion, that it would be impossible to attempt anything like a connected and literal translation of the text.” Accordingly, while offering a transliteration of the text, he has not attempted a translation. All or nearly all his criticisms will be found practically answered in this my article. I cannot extend this article, already long, by further discussions, but a comparison of his and my articles will remove all the difficulties that he found. My article on the three other grants was published last year, and he would no doubt have entirely revised his article if he had lived to see that.

I will only add as a general remark that it is hardly sound to pronounce anything that is hardly sound to pronounce anything that is not readily intelligible to be a forgery because even forgeries are meant to be quite intelligible, otherwise they would fail in their object.

[admin]

A Forged Copper-Plate Inscription From Eastern Bengal.
by Theodor Bloch
Archaeological Survey of India Annual Report
P. 255
1907-8

This inscription is written on both sides of a single sheet of copper, measuring 8” by 4-3/4”. The plate has no raised rims, and bears, on its left-hand side, clear indications of having been soldered on to a seal. Nothing is known to me about the exact find spot of the plate, beyond the vague fact, that it came from Eastern Bengal. When I saw it in July, 1908, it was with some Bengali gentleman in Calcutta; however, I understand, that it has since been returned to its owner.

The main point of interest attaching to the inscription on this plate, is the fact that it proves to be an ancient legal forgery, made with the object of claiming the ownership of certain landed property, which, by a previous copper-plate, had been given to certain persons. This fact becomes evident both from paleographical and grammatical reasons. To begin with paleography, the inscription, at first sight, conveys the impression of being written in the alphabet current in North-Eastern India from 600 to 800 A.D. approximately. There are, perhaps, even a few letters that would carry us a little further back, especially such forms as the letter ha in the end of 1.20 (sahasrani), and in its combined form, in the group hma, in 11.11 and 14 (vrahmana-). This form of ha may generally be taken as a test letter proving that any form of writing, in which it occurs, belongs to the 4th or 5th century A.D.1 [See A.S.R. 1903-4, p. 102.] and I believe, there can be no possible doubt about the spuriousness of any inscription, which exhibits, by the side of the ancient Gupta ha, such late forms, as the tu of 1.10 (catu-), and the la of 1.12 (alam) and (lopari-). This last letter la is particularly instructive, as its younger form occurs only twice, in one and the same line, while in the many other places where la has been employed we find forms varying but slightly from the ordinary la of the North-Eastern variety of the Indian Alphabet during the Gupta time. Evidently, the writer had become absent-minded for a moment, and forgot his part as a clever forger, which, otherwise, he has not played badly up to the end. The tu, which he wrote in 1.10, likewise, shows that he was generally accustomed to write this letter in a way which somewhat resembles the modern Bengali form of tu.2 [It may be seen e.g. in 1.15 of the Deopara Inscription of Vijayasena, chatur-jjaladhi=; see Ep. Ind. Vol. I, p. 309, and plate.]

The grammar of the inscription, especially the syntax, is in such a bad state of confusion, that it would be impossible to attempt anything like a connected and literal translation of the text. Thus, in the beginning, in 1.2, we find the loc. sing. of the present participle, pratapati, connected with the name of the king, Samacaradeve. Evidently this phrase was intended to mean, ‘while Samacaradeva was reigning,’ but pra-tap- is never used in that sense, and the writer of the inscription clearly blundered, perhaps from such phrases as prathivipatau ‘while Samacaradeva was lord of the earth.’ Following close upon this wrongly employed phrase, we read in 11.3 and 4 suvarna-visyadhikrt-antaranga, an epithet, referring to the uparika Jivadatta (1.4). We may well imagine that the writer had in his mind an expression meaning that Jivadatta gained the affection (antaranga, lit. heart) of the people by magnificent gifts of gold (suvarna-visranana), but here as well as in all the following lines of the inscription, it is altogether hopeless to attempt any corrections.

The inscription purports to record a grant of land made during the reign of the Maharajadhiraja, the illustrious Samacaradeva (1.2), by the uparika1 [This term still requires explanation. I only find the Marathi word upari explained by Molesworth as ‘a tenant or farmer, having no right of occupancy, as opp. to thalakari, a landed proprieter’; but this modern term does not appear to help us much further.] Jivadatta (1.4). The grant was made in supersession of a previous one, by which a portion of the land had already been given to certain persons, whose names are not mentioned (11.15ff. prak-tamrapatti-krta-ksettra-kulyavapa-ttvayam-apasya). The recipient of the present grant appears to have been a certain Supratikasvamin (11.5 and 17). The land was situated in the district (mandala) of Kavaraka (1.4).

So far, at least, it appears to me possible to grasp the general meaning of the inscription. But, here again, grave doubts arise in regard to its genuineness. First of all, a name like that of the grantee Supratikasvamin, seems to me an extremely dubious form of an Indian proper name. Likewise, the king’s name Samacaradeva (1.2), meaning ‘His Highness, Decency,’ is certainly very surprising, and I can only imagine, that it might have been employed as a biruda, one of those secondary titles often borne by Indian princes. The case of two of the proper names of mahattaras, mentioned in 11.7 and 8, is still more suspicious. Are we really to believe, that such words as Vatsakunda and Janarddanakunda can ever have been employed as personal proper names? In Sanskrit kunda means ‘a pond,’ and any name, formed with this word, certainly can only be taken as a local, but never as a personal name. Nevertheless, I believe, we are able to understand how the forger came to introduce these two names into the inscription. For it seems very reasonable to assume that he actually found them mentioned in an ancient, genuine grant, which he used for his forgery; but failing to understand them properly, he committed himself to the grave error of treating two local names as personal proper names.

I have already given it as my opinion, that the grant has been forged with the help of and in accordance with another genuine grant, dating approximately from the 7th or 8th century A.D. We may well imagine, that the forger used a genuine document, or a draft of a genuine document, which he found in the Record Office (aksapatala) of one of the States of Eastern Bengal. This genuine document, moreover, does not appear to have been lost to us altogether. In the Indian Antiquary for 1892, page 45, Dr. Hoernle mentions a copper-plate from the Faridpur District in Eastern Bengal, which, as he informs us, had just been sent to him for decipherment. As far as I know, this plate has never been edited completely, and I have at present only the initial lines, published by Dr. Hoernle, to go on with. However, they agree so closely with the opening lines of our present inscription, that I have not the slightest hesitation in looking upon the Faridpur inscription as the genuine archetypes of the present, forged copy.1 [Dr. Hoernle’s Faridpur Grant, according to his transcription (lc.), reads as follows: Svasty-asyam-prthivyam=apratirathe / Nrga-Naghusa-Yayaty-Ambarisa-Samdhrta (sic. !) –Maharajadhi-raja-Sri-Dharmmaditya-bhattaraka-rajye / tad-anumodan-alabdh-aspade (nadhyana P) Kasikayam mahapratihar- oparika-Nagadevasy-addhyasana-kale. With regard to the word put by Dr. Hoernle into brackets, compare 11.2 and 3 of the present inscription: etac-carana-karala (read: kamala)-yugal-aradhan-opatta-navya-vakasikayam. Dr. Hoernle’s reading probably has to be corrected accordingly. Read also sama-dhrtau for sama-dhrta-in the beginning of Dr. Hoernle’s transcript.]

It is possible to assume, that Samacaradeva, the name of the king in the forged inscription, may have been a biruda, or second name, borne by Dharmaditya, the king, mentioned in the opening lines of Dr. Hoernle’s inscription from Faridpur. For I feel rather reluctant to believe that Samacaradeva could be a mere invention. Allowing, as we certainly do, a great state of confusion for any Record Office in Eastern Bengal at the time when the forgery was made, we must, nevertheless, keep in mind that the forgery was made with the object of proving that an entire plot of land was rightly claimed by certain persons, who, hitherto, has been enjoying the possession of only a part of it. At least, the words prak-tamrapatti-krta-ksettra-kulyavapa-ttrayam-apasya, in 11.15-16, uncertain and doubtful though their exact meaning remains to me, were still probably intended for the purpose above mentioned. The case of the present inscription, thus, appears to be the reverse of that of the Madhuban copper-plate inscription of Harsavardhana of Kanauj.2 [Ep. Ind. Vol. I, p. 73.] Here we observe the king, the famous Harsavardhana, issuing a grant of land, in order to set aside a previous forged grant,3 [The term kutasasana, ‘a forged grant,’ is of some interest. Sanskrit kuta, of course, means ‘deceit,’ but as its original meaning is ‘horn,’ it came to be employed in the wider sense of ‘forgery’ evidently, because it was a common thing in ancient India, to sell any carving, made of horn, as ivory. I may mention in this connection, that we learn from one of the inscriptions on the gateways of the Sanchi Stupa, that the stone carving of a certain portion of it was done by the ivory-workers of Vidisa, the modern Bhilsa, a town close to Sanchi; see Ep. Ind. Vol. II, page 378, No. 200 Vedisakehi damta-karaehs rupakamnam katam.] by which the village of Somakundaka had been enjoyed by a Brahman, called Vamarathya. The proprietary right to the said village was transferred by Harsavardhana to the Brahmans Vatasvamin and Sivadevasvamin. But, while the Madhuban plate of Harsavardhana contains a genuine grant, made in order to set aside a kutasasana or forged grant, we have in our plate from Eastern Bengal clearly a katasasana, prepared with the object of proving certain claims to some landed property, which could only be substantiated by means of a forgery. And from the fact, referred to above, that this forged copper-plate from Eastern Bengal bears clear indications of having been soldered on to a seal, we may well conjecture, that this seal actually was a genuine seal, to which the forged plate had been attached in the same manner, as the spurious Gaya plate of Samudragupta actually still bears a genuine seal of one of the Gupta kings attached to it.4 [ See Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions pp. 254-257 and Plate XXXVI.]

In regard to the time, when the present forgery was made, the forms of the letters la and tu, mentioned above, on page 255, seem to carry us back to a comparatively late period, perhaps not earlier than the 11th or 12th century A.D., but I feel rather reluctant to allow too wide a margin for this, as the forger’s work appears to me too clever to be anything that we might call fairly modern.

I now edit the inscription from photographs and impressions prepared from the original copper-plate.

Obverse.

(1) Svasty=Asyam=prthivyam-apratirathe Nrga-Naghusa-Yayaty-Amvarisa-sama-

(2) dhrto (tau)1 [The last aksara looks almost like tam.] Maharajadhiraja-sri-Samacaradeve pratapaty=etac-carana-karala-2 [Read kamala.—The preceding word pratapati is the loc. sing. of the present participle of pra-tap, ‘while he was shining’.]

(3) yugal-aradhan-opatta-navy-avakasi-kayam suvarna-visyadhikrt-antara-

(4) nga uparika-Jivadattas-tad-anumodita-Kavaraka-mandale visaya-

(5) pati-Pavittrako yato=sya vyavaharatah Supratikasvamina jyesth-adhi-

(6) karanika-Damuka-pramukha-sadhikarana-svisaya-mahattara-Vatsa-

(7) kunda-mahattara-Suvipalita3 [This should be either Suvipalita or Srivipalita.] –mahattara-Vihitagsasuida-

(8) mahattara-Priyadasa-mahattara-Janaradanakunda-adayah anye cha

(9) vahavah pradhana vyavaha [ri*] nas-cha vijnaptaderacchasyaham bhavata prasa-4 [As the writer miscalculated the space on the plate, half of the last aksara, sa, has been written above the line.]

(10) dac=cirovasanna-khela-bhu-khandala-kamval [e] catu5 [This letter looks almost like u. Evidently the forger was used to write tu in a similar way as it is written in modern Bengali, viz [x]] h-si*]m[a*]- ntra (nta)-pracanta m niya-

(11) vrahmanopayogaya ca tamrapattikrtya tad=aham sa –prasada-kattra-m=iti yatadhanadaty-alam nasupalatya-saml-oparilikhita-

Reverse.

(13) nye vyavaharibhih samanyasagatas=ca padijnamhrarajnaidha svamsam niraksala-

(14) [ i]cchatogyikrtabhumindam pasyai carthadhamyam krtadasyai vrahman-adayatami

(15) vyavadhrtya karanika-Nayanaga-Kesav-adin=kulacaran=prakalpya prak-tamrapatti-

(16) krta-ksettra-kulyavapa-ttrayam=apasya vyaghra-corakair=yacchepatac-catuh-sima-

(17) lingabhir=d=distam krtv=asya Supratikasvaminah tamrapatti-krtya pratipadita[m*]

(18) simalingani c=attar / Purvvasya[m*] pisacapakkamtti daksinena vidya-

(19) dharajaigika pascimayam candra-campakogakenah uttarena (na) Go-

(20) pendracoraka-grama-sima c=eti / Bhavanti c=attar slokah Sastim=varsa=saha-

(21) srani svarge modati bhumidah aksepta c=anumanta ca1 [read ca.] tany=eva narake vaset 1

(22) Sva-da[t*]tam=para-dattam=va vo hareta vasundharam sva2 [read sa.] visthaya-[m*]krmi[r*]=bhutva pitrbhih

(23) saha pacyate / Samvat 10 4 Kartti di r /





T. Bloch