|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA There is much in Professor Mirashi’s paper which is imaginary as well as inaccurate. He says that “ after the defeat of Buddharāja by Pulakēśin II, they (i.e., the Kalachuris) seem to have remained for sometime in obscurity . . . . the Kalachuris seem to have turned their attention to the north where there was no great king to check their advance after the death of Harsha in A.D. 647. Vāmadēva seems to be the founder of this northern Kalachuri power. He overran Bundelkhand and Vaghelkhand and established himself at Kālañjara.”[1] Now, in the first place, what we know from inscriptions shows that Kalachuri Buddharāja was defeated by Chalukya Maṅgalēśa and not by Pulakēśin II[2]. Secondly, the Abhona[3] (Kalachuri year 347-595 A.C.) and Vadner[4] (Kalachuri year, 360=608 A.C.) plates of Buddharāja, which were issued respectively from Ujjayanī and Vaidiśa (i.e., Vidiśā) show that he had established himself in both West and East Malwa long before Harsha (606-47 A.C.) was free from his struggles in the U.P. It is therefore natural to think that king Śaṅkaragaṇa of the Saugor inscription, who was ruling over the country about East Malwa more than a century later, was a descendant of Baddharāja. Professor Mirashi’s Vāmadēva can hardly be described as the founder of Kalachuri power in that area. Thirdly, the conjecture that it was Vāmadēva who conquered Bundelkhand and Vaghelkhand and especially Kālañjara is a mere flight of fancy. There is again nothing in the present state of our knowledge to suggest that the kings mentioned in the Saugor inscription were direct ancestors of the Kalachuris of Tripurī, although that may not be altogether impossible. 8. Mehār Plate of Dāmōdaradēva ; Śaka 1156, Regnal year 4 The Mehār copper-plate inscription was edited in this journal[5] jointly by the late Dr. B. M. Barua and Mr. P. B. Chakravarti. Unfortunately, the treatment of the record by the said scholars is not quite satisfactory since both the transcript and translation of the inscription as published by them contain many errors in our opinion. Consequently, we re-edit here the grant portion of the record in lines 17-32, which has suffered the most at the hands of the editors.
Although we are chiefly concerned in the present note with lines 17-32 of the Mehār plate detailing the grant recorded in the inscription, the nature of the editors’ treatment of the introductory verses may be illustrated by an examination of their reading and interpretation of at least one of the stanzas in this part of the epigraph. Verse 7 of the inscription has been read and translated as follows :─ Dēvēndrasya yath=aiva Mātalir=abhūt Kṛishṇasya yantā varaḥ khyātō Dāruka-va(ba)ndhula(r=a)sya nṛipatēr=Vārshṇēya-līlādharaḥ | tat-tulyō=bhavad-asya vāraṇa-ghaṭā-satpātra-mukhyaḥ kṛitī śrī-Gaṅgādharadēva ēsha samarē Prāgjyōtishēndr-ōpamaḥ || “ Just as Mātali was to Indra, (just as) Dāruka was the well-known charioteer and friend of Kṛishṇa, so to this king was the illustrious Gaṅgādharadēva, the foremost among the honest courtiers, resourceful like the scion of the Vṛishṇi family (i.e., Kṛishṇa). His elephant column was like his (i.e., of the king). He equalled in battle (even) the lord of Prāgjyōtisha (i.e., Bhagadatta).” A minor defect in the treatment of the verse may be mentioned at the outset. This is the indication of its metre as Sragdharā, although actually it is Śārdūlavikrīḍita. What is, however, more important is that the above translation of the stanza exhibits a number of blemishes, some of ____________________________________________________
[1] Op. cit., p. 167.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
