North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF RAIPUR

changed to anusvāra as in tasmiṁ, 1. 11 and in several cases the proper order of the members of a conjunct is reversed; see mautkika-for mauktika-, 1. 5, nitavma-for nitamba-, 1.12, Phāgluna for Phālguna, 1. 10 etc.

The inscription refers itself to the reign of the king Brahmadēva of Rāyapura. He belonged to the Haihaya or Kalachuri dynasty as is known from the next inscription. The object of it is to record the construction, by the Nāyaka Hājirāja, of a temple of Hāṭakēśvara^¹ (Śiva) at Rāyapura.

After the customary salutation to Gaṇēśa, Sarasvatī and the poet's preceptors, the inscription begins with eight verses in honour of Vighnēśvarā (i. e., Gaṇēśa), Bhāratī (the goddess of speech), the preceptors, Śiva, the Gaṅgā and the moon. It then proceeds to record than on Friday, the eighth tithi of the bright fortnight of Phālguna in the (Vikrama) year 1458 and the Śaka year 1322, the cyclic year being Sarvajit, during the reign of the Mahārājādhirāja, the illustrious king Brahmadēva, while his minister was Ṭhākura Tripurāridēva and the Court-Paṇḍita was Mahādēva, the Nāyaka Hājirājadēva^² constructed a temple of Hāṭakēśvara (Śiva) at Rāyapura.

After a verse descriptive of Rāyapura we get a genealogy of the ruling king in verses 10-12. At Rāyapura there reigned a great king, Lakshmīdēva. His son was Siṅgha, who in turn had a son named Rāmachandra. Brahmadēva^³, who is mentioned next, was probably a son of Rāmachandra, though there is no explicit statement to that effect. The description of these princes is conventional and altogether devoid of historical interest.

The pedigree of Hājirāja commences in verse 13. It seems from that verse that his father also was named Brahmadēva. The subsequent verses seem to describe his sons, grandsons and also brothers, but owing to the careless manner in which the record is composed and written, their exact relationship to one another is in many cases uncertain. Hājirāja seems to have had two sons, Padmanābha and Pāhidēva. The former's son was Kānhaḍa and the latter's, Śivaśarman. Two brothers of Hājirāja are also named in verses 20 and 21. The elder of them was named Supau (?) and the younger Gēyāti. The former of these had two sons, Gōlha and Vishṇudāsa. The inscription finally mentions the artisan Nāmadēva.

The date of the inscription corresponds to Friday, the 10th February 1402 A.C. On that day the eighth tithi of the bright fortnight of Phālguna in the expired Vikrama year 1458 ended 22 h. 20 m. after mean sunrise.^⁴ The cyclic year was Sarvajit according to the northern luni-solar system. The corresponding Śaka year was, however, 1323 expired, not 1322 as wrongly stated in the inscription.⁵
___________________

¹ In both the places (11.11 and 19) where name occurs it is written as Haṭakēśvara, but this is evidently a mistake for the usual form Hāṭakēśvara.
² The inscription does not state if Hājirāja was connected with the royal court.
³ The king's name occurs as Rāyabrahmadēva in 1. 11 and as Rāyabrahman in 1. 16; but rāya (rājan) is only an epithet prefixed to his name , as it does not occur in his Khalāri inscription where he is called Haribrahman. The name Harirāyabrahman given by Kielhorn is probably due to a mislection in 11. 16-17, where the correct reading is-bhuvi Rāyabrabma-nṛipatēr=, not Harirāyabrahma-nripatēr=. In the Khalāri inscription Haribrabmadēva is called the son of Rāmadēva.
⁴ According to Kielhorn's calculations, the tithi ended 20 h. 33 m. after mean sunrise on that day. He adds the following note on the name of the cyclic year- “ The year Sarvajit, No 21, lasted, according to the Sūrya-Siddhānta rule, without bīja, from 22 June, A.D. 1400 to 18 June, A.D. 1401, and with bīja, from 28 July, A.D. 1400, to 24 July, A.D. 1401; and according to the Jyōtistattva rule, from 2 June, A.D. 1400 to 29 May, A.D. 1401. Accordingly, Sarvajit was not actually current on the day of the date (10 February, A.D. 1402), but it was current at the commencement of the solar year (26 March, A.D. 1401). By the Tēliṅga rule the date would fall in the year Bhṛiśya, No.15.' Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 26.
⁵ In the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV, p. 505, the Śaka year is given as 1323, but that was probably in order to make it correspond to V. 1458.