South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

mahādēvī in her Baud plates not only assumes both the names as well as the epithet Paramavaishṇavī enjoyed by the earlier queen Tribhuvanamahādēvī alias Sindagaurī but refers to the latter not as Tribhuvanamahādēvī (as in the Talcher plates of her husband and the latter’s younger brother) but as Gōsvāminī. The foot of the stanza applying the name Sindagaurī to the issuer of the Dhenkanal plate has been actually appropriated by Pṛithvīmahādēvī in the similar verse quoted in her Baud plates. This attempt on the part of Pṛithvīmahādēvī to pass herself as the shadow of and at the same time to distinguish herself clearly from the earlier ruling queen Tribhuvanamahādēvī, whom she represents as Gōsvāminī, is not entirely unintelligible. This may have been partly due to her eagerness for strengthening her position against the lawful claim of the sons of her husband’s younger brother to the Bhauma­-Kara throne. Apparently, she claimed her position on the Bhauma-Kara throne to be exactly similar to that of her earlier namesake although she felt the necessity of avoiding any confusion between the two Tribhuvanamahādēvīs. It is interesting to note that Pṛithvīmahādēvī is silent in regard to Gōsvāminī’s relation with her predecessor. The facts that Tribhuvanamahādēvī of the Dhenkanal plate was induced by her feudatories to assume the burden of government by citing the instance of Gōsvāminī and that Pṛithvīmahādēvī alias Tribhuvanamahādēvī of the Baud plates applies the name Gōsvāminī to her earlier namesake (apparently to make a distinction between the two Tribhuvanamahādēvīs to avoid confusion) appear to suggest that the issuer of the Dhenkanal plate was called Gōsvāminī II after an ancient or legendary female ruler of Orissa probably having nothing to do with the Bhauma-Karas. It may be pointed out that the assumption of the name Sindagaurī, pointing to an association with the Sinda Nāgas, by Pṛithvīmahādēvī alias Tribhuvanamahādēvī, who is known to have been born in a royal family other than that of the Sindas, seems to be explainable only by the suggestion that she adopted it rather arbitrarily just to pass herself as the shadow of an earlier ruling queen of the Bhauma-Kara dynasty. It seems therefore that the issuer of the Dhenkanal plate was the real and original Sinda-Gaurī and that she flourished before the imitation Sinda-Gaurī who issued the Baud plates.

Fourthly, Mr. De thinks that the real names of the mother of Śubhākara III and the wife of Śubhākara IV were respectively Gōsvāminī and Pṛithvīmahādēvī and that they both assumed the name Tribhuvanamahādēvī, although he cannot say what the original name of Tribhuvanamahādēvī of the Dhenkanal plate, whom he regards as the third ruling queen of that assumed name, was. We find at least two difficulties in accepting this suggestion. The first is that, if the mother of Śubhākara III assumed the name Tribhuvanamahādēvī when she ascended the throne after her son’s death, she could not have possibly been mentioned by that name, as she really is, in the records of her son who preceded herself on the throne. In the second place, if Tribhuvanamahādēvī of the Dhenkanal plate was the third Bhauma-kara ruling queen of that name, it is rather strange that she, unlike Pṛithvīmahādēvī, did not feel the necessity of distinguishing herself to avoid a confusion between herself and any of her two past namesakes. This no doubt looks especially dubious when she is supposed to have been immediately preceded by another ruling queen of the same name, because the possibility of confusion in such a case was greater. If her real name was Tribhuvanamahādēvī, it must be regarded as a strange coincidence that she succeeded another Tribhuvanamahādēvī. But if her real name was different, she would have hardly chosen Tribhuvanamahādēvī as her coronation name, because that would lead to a confusion between herself and her predecessor on the throne. That the female rulers of the Bhauma-Kara family had no special liking for the name Tribhuvanamahādēvī is shown by the fact that none of the four later ruling queens of the dynasty (viz., Gaurīmahādēvī, Daṇḍimahādēvī, Vakulamahādēvī and Dharmamahādēvī) assumed that name. If the issuer of the Dhenkanal plate flourished immediately after Pṛithvīmahādēvī, she could have hardly called herself only by the name assumed by her predecessor without any attempt to distinguish herself.

_________________________________________________