|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
AN INSCRIPTION OF THE DYNASTY OF VIJAYAPALA in two of the records edited above.[1] In this connection the similarity of the names is again noteworthy. For the name of Mahīpāla’s grandfather, which is mentioned in both the Gwālior inscriptions as Bhuvanapāla, occurs with a slight change as Tiḥunapāla and Tribhuvanapāla respectively in the present and the Ṭhākardā inscriptions ; and this person is also said to have been the son of Pṛithvīpāla, showing similar names in that house. And if this view is accepted, the present record carries the genealogy of the royal Kachchhapaghāta house to two reigns further ; and the Ṭhākardā record which mentions Sūrapāla as a son of Vijayapāla whose son Anayapāla is mentioned as making a donation of a village, may be taken to carry the genealogy still further by one generation. The view that Vijayapāla, the donor of the present grant, was a scion of the royal Kachchhapaghāta house also gets support from chronological considerations. Both the Gwālior inscriptions referred to above show that the Kachhapaghāta Mahīpāla was on the throne in V.S. 1150 (1093 A.C.) and V.S. 1161 (1104 A.C.) ; and calculating for him a period of c. 1090 to 1110 A.C., we may take his son Tihuṇapāla to be reigning from c. 1110 to 1130 A.C., and the latter’s son Vijayapāla from c. 1130 to 1150 A.C., giving each of them an approximate period of twenty years. The year of the present grant thus falls during his reign. His son Sūrapāla, accordingly, may be taken to have been on the throne from c. 1150 onwards ; and thus the year 1155 A.C., when Sūrapāla’s son Anayapāla, who was then a prince who issued the Ṭhākardā grant, can well be justified.
Lines 4-6 of the inscription state that Vijayapāladēva made the grant of the village, in order to increase the religious merit and fame of his parents as well as of himself, in the presence of his councillor (or councillors), the family-priest, the astrologer, all his dependents and the Brāhmaṇa Indasvāmin,[2] Sōmadēva, and Kōkala Gadelaka who were all residents of the Brahmapurī at that place, and also in the presence of the Śrēshṭhins Lāla, Sāḍhā and Lashamaṇa (Lakshmaṇa). Lines 10-14 reproduce four of the customary imprecatory verses ; and the inscription close with the statement that it was written by Kēlhaṇa, the son of Āśādhara and grandson of Rājapāla, a Kāyastha from Valabhī, and engraved by Sājaṇa who was the son of Harasēṇa and grandson of the artisan Mahāvala (Mahābala ?) who belonged to Kukāsakya (?) family.
As for the localities mentioned in the inscription, Iṇgaṇapadra, which is mentioned here
as dakshiṇa-pathaka in l. 7, has already been identified with modern village Ignōdā or Iṅgnōda,
also called Riṅgnōd. The temple of Gōhaḍēśvara in favour of which the grant was made (l. 7)
may have existed on the Siprā about ten Kms. east of Riṅgnōd, as suggested by Kirtane. In
my personal visit to that place about ten year back, I noticed extensive remains of a Śaivite
temple on this site which is on the confluence of the river Piṅgalā with the Mālinī ; and the
temple still goes by the name Gōḍēśvara. About 2-3 Kms. east of this spot is a modern village
of the name of Bāmanpurī, suggesting its identification with the Brahmapurikā of the inscription (l. 5). Agasiyaka, the donated village cannot be definitely identified. In his edition of
the inscription Kirtane has stated that it may have been no longer in existence, and I could
not succeed in finding any village in the locality. A conjecture, however, may be hazarded in this
respect, viz., that it may be a compound name formed of two villages Āgā and Sīyaka. The
first of these is probably to be identified with the modern village Āgyā or Ākyā, lying on the
Ratlām-Mandsaur metalled road, about 35 kms. north of Ratlām and 10 kms. south by west of
Riṅgnōd, the find-spot of the inscription. If this is to be taken as the first component, the
second one of the name appears to be Sīyaka, which too is situated in the same region, about
25 kms. south of Riṅgnōd and almost equidistant, to the south of Ākyā. This conjecture gains
ground in view of the consideration that we have a number of villages named after kings, and
to cite an example from the same locality, we may point out the village called Muñja, probably
named after Muñja and situated about 3 kms. north-west of Ālōṭ, a station not very far from
Ratlām on the Ratlām-Koṭā branch of the Western Railway.
[1] Nos. 155 and 156, above. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
