The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

Preface

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Additions and Corrections

Images

Introduction

Political History

Administration

Social History

Religious History

Literary History

Gupta Era

Krita Era

Texts and Translations

The Gupta Inscriptions

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

POLITICAL HISTORY

not enough, because Vishṇu is renowned for his three strides, of which one only was in the antariksha. Why did not the other two places which represented the remaining two strides of Vishṇu come to be called Vishṇupada, especially the one on the plains (pṛithivī) ? The truth of the matter is that since only one Vishṇupada must already have been known as a sacred place, that being situated on a stupendously lofty eminence, it was considered to be midway between earth and heaven, that is, in the firmament, and that consequently Vishṇupada came to be used as a term denoting ‘the sky, firmament’ itself before the time of Amara, that is, before the fifth century A.D. If this is the case, it is quite intelligible why Chandra (that is, Chandragupta II) should be described as having quitted one , that is, the earth, and as having been settled on another , that is, the mid-region, because, as just pointed out, Vishṇupada where the column was at first standing was perched on such a high eminence that Vishṇupada not only was considered to be existing in antariksha but became itself a term synonymous with antariksha.

>

       The last question that we have now to consider is the exact location of Vishṇupada which is mentioned in stanza 3 as the place where the iron pillar was originally planted. We have just seen that there is nothing in stanza 2 which shows that Chandra was dead when the eulogy was engraved on the pillar. On the contrary, the word mūrttyā, occurring in it, clearly shows that he was alive at that time, because he could not, by any stretch of imagination, be supposed to have gone to the other world in his bodily form. We have therefore to take it not only that he was living but also that he was then staying at Vishṇupada. Here two questions arise: (1) Where precisely was this Vishṇupada, and (2) why was Chandra staying there? In regard to the first point, Fleet raises the query ‘whether it should be identified with the part of the Delhi Ridge on which the column stands.’1 But he is undecided, because, says he, on the one hand, that ‘the actual position of the column is in a slight depression, with rising ground on both sides, a position which hardly answers to the description of its being on a giri or ‘hill’. This agrees with the tradition, he argues further, that ‘the column was erected, in the early part of the eighth century A.D., by Anaṅgapāla, the founder of the Tōmara dynasty,’2 and raises the surmise that like the Aśōka stone columns at Delhi and Allahabad, the iron pillar also brought from elsewhere to the spot where it is now standing. On the other hand, he says that “the fact that the underground supports of the column include several small pieces of metal ‘like bits of bar iron’3 is in favour of its being now in its original position; as they would probably have been overlooked, and left behind, in the process of a transfer.” But “no violence of language,” remarks V. A. Smith, “could possibly justify the application of the term ‘hill’ to the present site of the monument.”4 And, in his opinion, it is extremely probable that the iron pillar was originally erected at Mathurā, at the Katra mound, where the magnificent temple of Kēśava once stood, and which may very probably prove to be Vishṇupada-giri mentioned in the inscription. But the Katra mound also, which, according to Smith, was the original site of the monument, cannot possibly, by any stretch of language be described as a giri. Long ago we noted that the Petersburg Lexicon gave many references to Vishṇupada contained in the epics and the Purāṇas. We drew the attention of Chintaharan Chakravarty to it, who, thereupon wrote a learned paper entitled “The Original Site of the Meherauli Pillar.”5 But he was not able to indentify the spot accurately. This was, however, done by J. C. Ghosh with practically the same materials.6 The most important of these is a
_______________________________________________________________

1 CII., Vol. III, 1888, pp. 140 ff.
2 CASIR., Vol. I, p. 171; CII., Vol. III, 1888, p. 141 and note 1.
3 CASIR., Vol. VI, p. 28 and Pl. V.
4 JRAS., 1897, pp. 16-17.
5 ABORI., Vol. VIII, pp. 172 and ff.
6 IC., Vol. I, pp. 515 and ff.

>
>