North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF RATANPUR

RAJIM STONE INSCRIPTION OF PRITHVIDEVA II : YEAR 896

putrō, 1. 5, etc, and that of n to ṇ in punar-ṇṇavē, 1. 12. On the other hand, we have the superfluous addition of visarga in Sāhilla-nāmāḥ, 1.2., sarvvadāḥ 1.14, satya-dharmma- ratāḥ (qualifying bhāryā), 1.14, etc. The composer’s ignorance of the genders of Sanskrit words is betrayed by the use of – putram for- putraḥ, 1.3, nava -sataḥ for nava -śataṁ, 1. 4, -dēsaṁ for -deśaḥ, 1. 4, prāsādaṁ for prāsādaḥ, 1.14, etc. Mistakes of declension are seen in such forms as Jagasiṁha-nãmam, 1.10 and dhanvinō=pi for dhavinām= api, 1.7, and those of conjugation in bhavēj= for abhvad= in 1. 2, nihaṇyēt for nyahan in 1.7. The writer has not dropped the anusvāra and visarga of the first members of compounds in sindūram- āṅgu=,1.9, śrī-Ratnadēvaḥ-nṛipa-rājya-,1,9, ripavaḥ-kshaya-kāriṇam 1.3. We have finally to notice the blunders of syntax śrōtā vai Bharat-ādihbiḥ, 1. 13, Rāmāyaṇa-mukhāḥ sarvē vaktā 1.13, ēbhiḥ putrō, 1. 6, siṁhēn=ēva (for siṁhasy=ēva), 1.8, etc.

This plethora of mistakes makes it very difficult to interpret the record in several places and as Dr.Kielhorn has remarked, 'the difficulty is increased by the loose way in which the several sentences or portions of sentences are connected with each other and by the omission of important statement'.^¹ Dr. Kielhorn has already drawn attention to the ambiguity about the relation of the Ṭhakkrāṇī Udayā, the mother of Jagapāla, to the brothers Jayadēva and Dēvasiṁha mentioned before. We may also mention that the holy person Muktātman is abruptly introduced and as abruptly passed over in 1. 15 without any definite statement as to how he was concerned in the present grant.

The object of the inscription is to record the construction of a temple of Rāma^² and the grant of the village Śālmaīya for the purpose of the naivēdya or offerings of food to the deity by Jagapāla (called Jagatsiṁha in line 10). It is specifically dated in the Kalachuri year 896 (expressed in decimal figures only) on Budha-dina or Wednesday, the eighth tithi, called rath-āshṭamī, in the bright for fortnight of the month Māgha. This date regularly corresponds, for the expired^³ Kalachuri year 896, to Wednesday, the 3rd January 1145 A.C. On that day the eighth tithi of the bright fortnight of Māgha ended 10 h. 45 m. after mean sunrise.^⁴ It is however, not clear why the tithi should have been called rath-āshṭamī; for , it is the preceding tithi (viz., the seventh tithi of the bright fortnight of Māgha), that is now called ratha-saptamī^⁵ while the eighth tithi of the same fortnight is called Bhīshm- āshṭamī.

After the customary obeisance to Nārāyaṇa (Vishṇu), the inscription traces the genealogy of the donor Jagapāla from the Ṭhakkura Sāhilla. The latter was the spotless ornament of the family of Rājamāla and gave delight to the Pañchahaṁsa family. He had acquired the pañchaṁahāśabda. He had emigrated from the country of Vaḍahara and was furnished with a banner, the flag of which was adorned
_____________________

¹ Ind. Ant., Vol. XVII, p. 136.
² There is another much-defaced record on the same wall of the maṇḍapa, incised in the proto-Nāgarī characters of about the beginning of the 8th cen. A.C., from which we learn that a king of the Nala dynasty originally built the temple of Vishṇu. See Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVI, pp. 49 ff. Jagapāla seems, therefore, to have only repaired or rebuilt the temple.
³ At first Kielhorn took the year as current as he held the view that the Kalachuri era commenced in 249 A.C. (see Ind. Ant., Vol. XVII, p. 215), but later on he corrected himself in his article on the era in the Festgruss an Roth, p. 54, when he came to the conclusion that the era was started in 248 A.C.
⁴ According to Dr. Kielhorn's calculations, the tithi ended 10 h. 59 m. after mean sunrise on that day (Ind. Ant., Vol. XVII, pp. 136 and 216).
⁵ The tithi is so called in the Prince of Wales Museum plates of Dadda III, dated K. 427 (No.121, below).