Contents |
Index
|
Introduction
|
Contents
|
List of Plates
|
Additions and Corrections
|
Images
|
Contents |
Chaudhury, P.D.
|
Chhabra, B.ch.
|
DE, S. C.
|
Desai, P. B.
|
Dikshit, M. G.
|
Krishnan, K. G.
|
Desai, P. B
|
Krishna Rao, B. V.
|
Lakshminarayan Rao, N., M.A.
|
Mirashi, V. V.
|
Narasimhaswami, H. K.
|
Pandeya, L. P.,
|
Sircar, D. C.
|
Venkataramayya, M., M.A.,
|
Venkataramanayya, N., M.A.
|
Index-By A. N. Lahiri
|
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
|
|
|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
BANGAON PLATE OF VIGRAHAPALA III ; REGNAL YEAR 17
follow in lines 47-49 speak of the dūta or dūtaka (i.e., the executor of the grant) and the engraver
of the plate in the usual style of the charters of Vigrahapāla III. What is, however, very interesting
in our record is that its dūta is said to have been the mantrin Prahasitarāja described as a
son of the king. Why, in the name of this as yet unknown son of Vigrahapāla III, the ending rāja
has been preferred to the expected pāla cannot be determined.[1] The engraver of the plate was
the artisan Śaśidēva who was the son of Hrīdēva hailing from Pōshalī. We know that several
engravers of the Pāla plates hailed from the same village. Indeed the same verse also occurs at the
end of the Āmgāchhī pla6te where, however, Śaśidēva is called Mahīdharadēva-sūnu instead of
Śrīmān=Hrīdēva-sūnu. The passage in our record is, however, grammatically wrong and requires
some modification. Whether the reading intended is śrī-Mahīdēvaº cannot be determined,
although in such a case Mahīdharadēva and Mahīdēva may have been regarded as identical.
An interesting feature of the charter under discussion is the peculiar endorsement in two verses
at the end (lines 49-50). According to this, the real donor of the land was not, as recorded in the
grant, the king but one of his Brāhmaṇa officers, named Ghaṇṭīśa. This man is described as a
vidhēya or servant of the lord of Gauḍa, i.e., the Pāla king, and as having friendship with several
rulers. He is said to have made the grant out of his own hala, probably meaning the jāgīr under
his possession. Ghaṇṭīśa was the son of Yōgēśvara and the grandson of Vivada. This Vivada is
said to have been born of Iddhahalā, daughter of Gōhaṇaka and granddaughter of Kāchchha who
came [to Tīrabhukti or North Bihār] from Krōḍāñcha. There is no doubt that Krōḍāñcha is the
same as Kōlāñcha mentioned earlier in the inscription as the original home of Ghāṇṭūkaśarman,
donee of the grant. The nature of the present grand seems to be similar to that of such records as
the Kailan (otherwise called Kailain) plate,[2] according to which an officer of a king got a piece of
land (probably by purchase) from his master and parts of if were granted in favour of certain
learned Brāhmaṇas and of a Buddhist religious establishment. In the present case, the king
merely permitted and ratified the grant making the gift land a permanent revenue-free holding.
Besides the mention of a new Pāla jaya-skandhāvāra and a hitherto unknown son of Vigrahapāla III serving as a minister of his father, and the interesting nature of the grant actually made by
a private individual but represented as a royal gift because the king made the land a rent-free
holding, a fact of considerable importance in the Bangāon plate is its date. So long, the latest
definitely known date of the reign of this king was his 12th regnal year.[3] Of course there were
the Kurkīhār image inscriptions,[4] dated in the 19th regnal year of Vigrahapāla, and a manuscript
of the Pañcharakshā copied in the 26th year of his reign.[5] But it was not known whether these
dates should have to be referred to Vigrahapāla III or his great-grandfather Vigrahapāla II. The
recently discovered Naulāgarh image inscription,[6] dated in the 24th regnal year of Vigrahapāla,
without any indication in regard to his identity, also did not solve the problem. Thus the position
was that, while Vigrahapāla III was known to have ruled at least for about 12 years, either the
same king of Vigrahapāla II may have ruled at least for about 26 years. Under the circumstances,
some writers[7] assigned to Vigrahapāla II a short reign of less than one year but to Vigrahapāla III
a long reign of about 26 years, while others[8] assigned the long reign-period to Vigrahapāla II. In
_________________________________________________
[1] Was it due to the fact that Prahasitarāja was born of a concubine of king Vigrahapāla III ?
[2] I. H. Q., Vol. XXIII, pp. 221-41.
[3] History of Bengal, op. cit., p. 174 ; Bhandarkar, List, No. 1632.
[4] J. B. O. R. S., Vol. XVI, pp. 36 f., 239 f., ; History of Bengal, loc. cit.
[5] History of Bengal, op. cit., p. 179.
[6] Ganesh Datta College Bulletin, No. 1, pp. 1-16 ; J.B.R.S., Vol. XXXVII, parts 3-4, pp. 1 ff.
[7] Ray (1). H. N. I., Vol., I, p. 385) assigns Vigrahapāla II to circa 992 A.C. and Vigrahapāla III to circa
1055-81 A.C.
[8] Majumdar (Hist. Beng., op. cit., p. 177) assigns Vigrahapāla II to circa 960-88 A.C. and Vigrahapāla III to
circa 1055-70 A.C.
|