|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
POLITICAL HISTORY tify it with Kōsalī found in the former Patna State, Orissa. Now, Burgess expressed the opinion that the Jaggayyapēṭa inscriptions “belong to about the third or fourth century A.D., but are possibly earlier.” Vogel, while editing them, placed the reign of King Purisadata in the third century of our era, and “before the accession of the Pallavas to the throne of Vaṅgi.”1 And perhaps we shall not be far from right if we suppose that hardly two generations separated the Ikshvāku ruler, Chāṁtamūla II, from Samudragupta. We may, therefore, take it that these Ikshvākus had carved a powerful kingdom for themselves in the south, that their principal territory was Dakshiṇa Kōsala, but that their might had spread as far south as the Telugu country, and that chronologically they were not much anterior to the Guptas. We may, therefore, safely take it that, in all likelihood, Mahēndra, king of Kōsala, who is mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription was a member of the Ikshvāku family and was most probably a son or grandson of Chāṁtamūla II. What the capital of Kōsala was in the time of Samudragupta we do not know. But about the eighth century A.D. it was certainly Śrīpura, modern Sirpur, because it was from this place that Tīvaradēva (c. 800 A.D.), who styled himself ‘Supreme Lord of Kōsala’, issued two charters.2 Possibly Śrīpura was the capital of Kōsala even in the time of the Ikshvākus.
The second king of Dakshiṇāpatha that has been mentioned in our inscription is Vyāghrarāja of Mahākāntāra. It no doubt seems tempting to identify this Vyāghrarāja3 with the ruler
of that name who is mentioned in the Nāchnē-kī-talāī and Gañj inscriptions as a feudatory of
the Vākāṭaka king Pṛithivīshēṇa, and to say that his principality consisted to portions of the
erstwhile Jaso and Ajaigarh States of Bundelkhand.4 According to Dubreuil,5 however, the
Nāchnē-kī-talāī epigraph belongs rather to the fifth than to the fourth century A.D. The late
V. S. Sukthankar, who edited the second record, assigns it to about the seventh century.6 The
late Rao Bahadur K. N. Dikshit agrees with Dubreuil.7 R. D. Banerji, however, strongly
dissents from their view, and maintains the identification of Vyāghrarāja of the Allahabad
inscription with Vyāghradēva of the Bundelkhand epigraphs.8 Notwithstanding the criticism
of such an authority on palaeography as R. D. Banerji, we feel inclined to ascribe the latter
records to the fifth or even the sixth, but not to the fourth century A.D. The overlord of
Vyāghradēva is thus Pṛithivīshēṇa II, and not Pṛithivīshēṇa I of the Vākāṭaka line. Besides,
the former Jaso and Ajaigarh States, which are supposed to comprise the chieftainship of
Vyāghradēva, are situated to the north, rather than to the south, of the Narmadā. His principality could thus scarcely be taken as forming part of Dakshiṇāpatha. Though Vyāghrarāja
cannot be identified, the province over which he ruled can be located with some degree of
probability. We have here to distinguish Mahākāntāra from Sarv-Āṭavika-rājya referred to
later in the record (line 21). This latter, as we shall soon see, corresponds to the forests spread
over Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand. Mahākāntāra, therefore, in all likelihood, denotes the
forests ranging between Kōsala and Kaliṅga. It no doubt denotes the area of Viśākhapattanam
and Ganjam, which in a copper plate grant9 of Narasiṁhadēva II is called dakshiṇa-Jhāḍa-khaṇḍa. Jhāḍakhaṇḍa in Oriya signifies ‘a forest region’, and the Northern Jhāḍakhaṇḍa
probably denoted the forest range which separates Bihar from Bengal.10 This easily explains 1 Ep. Ind., Vol. XX, p. 2.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|