|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS and are mentioned as being handed down traditionally in accordance with the reckoning of the Mālavas. But, as shown elsewhere, these years have to be referred to what is now known as the Vikrama era, commencing with 57 B.C.; and the result for the present inscription is 404-05 A.D. The object of the record is not very clear so far as the larger fragment goes, but something is mentioned as having been given by one Satya, who was apparently of the bania caste and was a grandson of Jaya and a son of Varṇṇavṛiddhi through Jayamitrā. From the smaller fragment, however, it appears that there was a shrine of Kṛishṇa adjoining on orchard and that it was this orchard which was apparently given by Satya. It is thus a Vaishṇava record, a conclusion which agrees with verse 1 where obeisance is paid to Purusha and verse 11 which praises the god Vāsudēva. It further seems from the smaller fragment that the upkeep of the orchard was entrusted to a Brāhmaṇa whose name is gone but who belonged to the Gārggāyaṇa gōtra.It is true that this stone belonged to the present Mandasōr; but that it belonged also to the old and original Daśapura is clear from line 2 therefo where it is spoken of as a town (pura) named (Daśa) which is two times five (i.e., ten). As was first pointed out by us,1 Jayavarman, Siṁhavarman and Naravarman mentioned in this inscription belonged to a family of feudatory chieftains ruling over Daśapura and were succeeded by Viśvavarman and Bandhuvarman known from Gangadhār2 and Mandasōr3 inscriptions respectively. Among the various epithets of Naravarman specified in this record occurs in line 5 the epithet Siṅha-vikrānta-gāmin, which shows that he was a feudatory of Chandragupta II. For, we know from Gupta coins that Siṁha-vikrama was an epithet of Chandragupta II.4 Further, we know from inscriptions Nos. 6 and 9 above that this Gupta sovereign reigned from Gupta year 61 to 93, i.e., from A.D. 380 to 412; whereas the date for Naravarman is Vikrama year 461 i.e., 404 A.D. Naravarman was thus doubtless a contemporary of Chandragupta II. Nothing therefore precludes us from supposing that the expression Siṅha-vikrāntagāmin indicates that Naravarman was a tributary prince of Chandragupta II. And this is in keeping with the fact that his successors, Viśvavarman and Bandhuvarman were contemporaries and feudatories of Kumāragupta I.
The date of the inscription, we have seen, is the 5th of the bright half of Āśvina. This
date fell, we are told in line 2, when the festival of Indra approved by Kṛishṇa was going on.
Although the festival coincided with what is known as Pūjā in Bengal, it is strange that
Haraprasad Sastri has slurred over the passage and has not explained what this festival of
Indra approved by Kṛishṇa was. The Harivaṁśa (chapters 72-76, especially verses 4005-08 and
verses 4019-20), however, throws some light on the subject.5 It was the custom of the people
of Bṛindāvana to offer worship to Indra on the 14th day of the dark half of Kārtika, but
Kṛishṇa induced them to transfer their worship to the cows and Mount Gōvardhana which
were the source of their sustenance. This made Indra angry who poured down such a deluge
as to cause destruction amongst them and their kine. This led to a struggle for supremacy
between Indra and Kṛishṇa which ended in the victory of the latter by Kṛishṇa pulling out
Gōvardhana and holding it as an umbrella over the cowherds and the kine. Thereupon
Indra came to terms with Kṛishṇa. According to these Indra agreed that although there were
four months of the rainy season, the first two (i.e., Śrāvaṇa and Bhādra) should be considered
1 Ind. Ant., Vol. XLII, pp. 161-62.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|