|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA through Dharma. This probably suggests that he normally succeeded his predecessor on the throne and was not a usurper. The importance of two inscriptions lies in the fact that they are the only epigraphic records of kings Nītichandra and Vīrachandra of the Buddhist royal family of the Chandras of Arakan although both the rulers are known from their coins as well as the Mrohaung pillar inscription of Ānandachandra. Nītichandra’s coins bear the legend Nīti or Nītichandra while Vīrachandra is similarly called Vīra or Vīrachandra on his coins.[1] As pointed out above, the Mrohaung inscription of Ānandachandra mentions Vīrachandra as Vīryachandra. The Mrohaung pillar inscription gives very valuable information regarding the genealogy and chronology of the Chandras of Arakan, who had their capital at Vēsālī. It is a praśasti of king Ānandachandra belonging to a family called Dēv-āṇḍaj-ānvaya or śrī-Dharmarāj-āṇḍaja-vaṁśa. Anandachandra’s father Dharmachandra seems to be described as belonging to the Īś-ānvaya, probably meaning ‘a family of kings’ or ‘ a royal family ’, while an ancestor of Ānandachandra, named Vajraśakti, is called ‘born in the Dēva family ’ either to impart the same idea or to indicate that his mother belonged to the Dēva dynasty. The word aṇḍaja means a bird and dēv-āṇḍaja possibly indicates the divine bird Garuḍa. The expression śrī-Dharmarāj-āṇḍaja-vaṁśa possibly means ‘ the bird (Garuḍa) family of the illustrious and virtuous kings’. The inscription was written for recounting Ānandachandra’s pious activities in the first nine years of his reign and was apparently engraved in his ninth regnal year. While the second part of the inscription is a eulogy of Ānandachandra, its first part contains three sections quoting the names of the kings together with the duration of their reigns, who were believed to have ruled over the area in question before Ānandachandra. The first of these three sections deals with certain kings who altogether ruled for 1016 or 1060 (sahasraṁ shaḍ-daś-ādhikam) years. The beginning of this section is damaged ; but, as all the five kings at the commencement of the extant portion are stated to have each ruled for 120 years, it is clear that this section (or at least its earlier part) is mythical. The second section deals with the Chandra kings, sixteen of whom are stated to have ruled for 230 years. The list, however, enumerates only thirteen names although their reign-periods as quoted in it come up to 230 years. This is possibly because three kings of the dynasty, who may have ruled for a few weeks or months, were omitted from the list. The last of the three sections deals with the family to which Ānandachandra belonged and quotes the names of his eight predecessors stated to have together ruled for 119 years and 9 months. While the first section reminds us of the mythical account of the ancient history of Kashmir in the earlier chapters of Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī, the second and third sections resemble the genealogical part of the inscriptions of such dynasties as the Eastern Chālukyas of Vēṅgī and the Imperial Gaṅgas of Kaliṅga[2] and have the appearance of being based on fairly authentic information. It has, however, to be pointed out that Indian inscriptions earlier than Ānandachandra’s record, often quote the names of the predecessors of a king generally without the duration of their reigns.
The chronology of the Chandras of Arakan depends on the determination of the date not only of their coins and the inscriptions now under study but also of the Mrohaung pillar inscription of Ānandachandra. Johnston points out how the script of Ānandachandra’s record is ‘almost entirely identical ’ with that of the Nalanda inscription[3] of Yaśōvarman ‘ both in the form of the ______________________________________________
[1] Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, op. cit., p. 385 and Plate ; Phayre, Coins of Arakan, of
Pegu and of Burma, pp. 28-29 and Plate II ; Smith, Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, Vol. I. Plate XXXI,
No.9. Smith wrongly reads śrī-Śivasya (or Givasya) for Nītichandra.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
