South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

MEHAR PLATE OF DAMODARADEVA

Nāvya. We need not bring in here other maṇḍalas within the same bhukti, viz., Nāvya, Adhaḥpattana, Khāḍī, Varēndrī (?) and Kumārātālaka, that may serve only to fix the limitation of the extent of the Samataṭa maṇḍala in Dāmōdara’s time.

The really plausible explanation of the position of the Dēva kings arising out of the Mehār plate would be that, while they were reigning in the Samataṭa maṇḍala of the Pauṇḍravarddhana bhukti, the Sēnas held supremacy over the region of Vaṅga including Vikramapura and Nāvya and passed as Gauḍēśvaras within the same bhukti. Their supremacy was disputed but could not till then be shaken off. If this inference be correct, one may even go further and suggest that the river Mēghnā was the natural boundary between Dāmōdara’s territory and the dominion of Vaṅga under the latest Sēna rule.

The position of the early Dēvas even as regards their suzerainty over the whole of the district of Tippera is rendered anomalous by the Maināmati plate of Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladēva, issued in the 17th year of his reign which corresponded to the year 1141 of the Śaka era ( =A.D. 1218). From the date of this grant and the length of the reign indicated therein, it is evident that if Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladēva was not a contemporary of both the father and the grandfather of Dāmōdaradēva, he was at least a contemporary of his father, king Vāsudēva. When precisely Harikāladēva’s reign ended or what happened to his line, we cannot say. From the inclusion of the city or town of Paṭṭikērā with the Maināmati (Lālmāi) hillock as its probable natural landmark, it is certain that his principality was situated in close neighbourhood of the kingdom of the early Dēva rulers. Whether a scion of the Dēva family or not, his rule would seem to have been confined to a small portion of Tippera.

The main object of the present plate is, however, to give away by a royal charter certain plots of land in the village of Mehār to twenty Brahmins of high distinction, together with their annual income, with a perpetual right of enjoyment and use. The donees are all mentioned by name. It is not unlikely that their names have been arranged in groups. At all events, some have been distinguished by the gōtras to which they belonged, and some by the villages from which they came. The gōtras mentioned are three in all, namely, Sāvarṇya, Bhāradvāja and Ātrēya. The villages mentioned consist of Kāṇyamala, Pūrvagrāma, Si[d*]dhalagrāma, Diṇḍisā and Kēśarakōṇā. One of the Brahmins is distinguished from the rest as gṛihi-paṇḍita. The charter is said to have been received from king Chāṇūra-Mādhava by Kāpaḍīof the Sāvarṇya gōtra on behalf of himself and the other donees concerned.

This matter which is presented in the form of a prose statement in a most business-like way has been inserted between two sets of Sanskrit stanzas, the first consisting of seven ślōkas, and the other of five.

Along with the four members of the Dēva family, the plate immortalises the name of Gaṅgādharadēva, the highly eulogised generalissimo of Dāmōdara. It mentions also Munidāsa as Dāmōdara’s chief-minister for war and peace (Mahāsāndhivigrahika), and Dalaēva as Mahākshapaṭalika, both of whom joined with the king in the recorded work of merit.

To what extent the Mehār grant may be taken to bear information concerning the origin of the gāñis of the Bengal Brahmins is difficult to say. The gāñi as a technical term denotes the social status of a Brahmin determined by his original connection with a particular village in Bengal. According to the Rāḍhīya sect of Brahmins, the social distinction goes to 56 villages. It is noteworthy that no fewer than four villages, viz., Pūrvagrāma, Siddhala, Diṇḍisā and Kēśarakōṇā, mentioned in the inscription, are included in the list of 56 gāñis. The location of the fifth village, Kāṇyamala, remains yet unknown.

Lastly, the authors must express their indebtedness to Mr. N. N. Dasgupta, for some valuable suggestions regarding the reading of the inscription. to Mr. T. N. Ramachandran,

_______________________