South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

chirañjīva (literally ‘ long-lived ’) indicating that these two persons were alive while their ancestors mentioned in the list were all dead. Unfortunately the contraction pro used with the names of the other persons is difficult to interpret in contradistinction to chirañjīva. The only suitable word that suggests to us is Hindī prohita=Sanskrit purohita meaning ‘ a professional priest’.^[1] The inscription does not clearly state the relation of Kāśīdāsa and Kimudāsa with the object of the inscription, which, as will be seen later, is to record the construction of a step-well. There is, however, little doubt that the said two persons were responsible for construction of the step-well in question or at least for the supervision of its excavation.

Lines 7-9 give the genealogy of the ruling chief in whose territory the step-well was apparently excavated. This chief was one Rāmachandra, called both Rājan and Rāwa (i.e. Rāo-Rāja), who was the son of Rājan Pṛithvīrāja and grandson of Rājādhirāja Rājan Sūryaśeṇi (possibly a mistake for or corruption of ºsena). This section also mentions Kaṁwara (Sanskrit Kumāra, ‘ a prince ’) chaº Parasarāma (Sanskrit Paraśurāma) who was the son of Rāmachandra. The reason of the prince’s mention, not apparent from the language of the record, seems to be that the area, where the step-well was excavated, formed a part of his jāgīr. The abbreviation cha may be a mistake for chi or chirañjīva, for which charañjīva is a popular corruption. In Rājasthānī legal documents, the word charaṇa is often found between the names of the father and son to indicate the relation of the latter to the former. Thus cha in the passage in question may also stand for charaṇa although this is doubtful in view of the fact that the word putra occurs in our text to indicate the relation between Rāmachandra and Paraśurāma. These chiefs holding sway over the district round Taḍā-Rāising are not known from any other inscription. The reason for the application of a more dignified regal epithet to the name of Rāmachandra’s grandfather is not apparent.

Lines 9 ff. refer to the ruling king and his overlord, to both of whom the chief Rāmachandra of the Tōḍā-Rāising region, owed allegiance. Mention is first made of the vāra (turn or time of rule) of Pātisāha Asalema Sāhi, the son of Sera Sāhi Sūra, i.e. Islām Shāh (1445-57 A.D.), son of Sher Shāh (1439-45 A.D.) of the Sūr dynasty of Delhi. Then follows a reference to Rāṇā Udaiyasiṁghadeva (Sanskrit Udayasiṁhadeva), son of Rājan Saṁgrāmadeva, as ruling over the Kumbhalamera rājya. It is interesting to note that the imperial status of Saṁgrāmadeva is especially indicated in the inscription which describes him as sarva-bhūmikau khasama (i.e. ‘ the lord of all land or the entire earth ’, a conventional designation of the Indian imperial rulers) and ghōḍā lākha 11 kau khasamu (i.e. ‘ the lord of eleven lakhs of horses or horsemen ’). But the mention of Udayasiṁha, the ruler of Kumbhalamera, side by side with the emperor (Pātisāha) Islām Shāh, both as overlords of the chief Rāmachandra, undoubtedly points to the fact that the Rāṇā was regarded as a feudatory of the Muhammadan monarch, although his father Saṁgrāmadeva, i.e. Saṅgrāmasiṁha or Sāṅgā, was an independent king. The mention of Rāmachandra, his immediate liegelord Udayasiṁha, and the latter’s overlord Islām Shāh without clearly specifying the relations of one with the others is not peculiar to the record under study but is also known from other medieval inscriptions of the same region. Of course there are some epigraphs in which the subordinated relation of the feudatory is specifically expressed ; cf. the Mandasor inscription of V.S. 1576 and Śaka 1441 introducing Rāṇā Saṁgrāmasiṁha’s subordinate at Daśapura (Mandasor) in the following words : mahārājādhirāja-śrī-Rāṇa-Saṁgrāma || tasya prasāde udyotakārī | Rāja-śrī-Rāna-Asokamala | Daśapura-nagare Thānāpati |^[2] But there are others which mention the names of the rulers without may specification exactly as in our record. An inscription from Rāmpurā near Mandasor, dated Śaka 1547, introduces the Mughal

_____________________________________________

^[1] For a member of a Purohita family in charge of the construction of a fort, see another inscription from the Jaipur District in Proc. I.H.C., Nagpur, 1950, pp. 193 93.
^[2] From an inked impression preserved in the office of the Government Epigraphist for India.