North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA

Ṭhīkarikā, falling in the Ṭhikarikā or Ṭhikkarikā sub-division of villages,[1] to two persons[2] whose names must have been given in the writing of the first plate which is now missing. As it would appear from the construction, these two villages were granted in exchange of some other land which had been so far enjoyed by these two donees, as a grant made on the occasion of the annual funeral ceremony of the illustrious Mōmaladēvī, about whom nothing besides the name appears in the record but who was very probably the mother of Yaśōvarman.

...Lines 3-7 contain the usual terms of the grant ; and this portion is followed by five of the customary benedictive and imprecatory verses. Then comes the date, given in figures only, ‘the third of the dark half of the month of Mārgaśīrsha of the (Vikrama) year 1192’, which, as observed by Kielhorn, corresponds ‘probably to either the 27th October or the 25 th November, 1135 A.C.’[3] Then follows the mention of the names as dūtakas, of the Purōhita, the Ṭhakkura, the illustrious Vāmanasvāmin ; the Ṭhakkaura, the illustrious Purushōttama ; the Mahāpradhāna, the Rājaputra, the illustrious Dēvadhara, and others (prabhṛitayaḥ). Line 14 contains the usual expression wishing bliss and fortune, followed by what Kielhorn takes to be the letter ra, but more probably appearing as an ornamentation.[4] In 1. 15 we have the sign-manual of the king, the Mahārāja, the illustrious Yaśōvarmmadēva, which again is followed by the word adhi-śrīḥ, both its parts written separately,

... Fortunately all the place-names mentioned in the inscription can be identified. Dēvalapāṭaka, where the land obtained originally by the donees is said to have existed (1. 1), appears to me to be represented by the modern villages Deul or Dewlā, and Pāḍalyā in the Bhikangāon parganā of the West Nimār District, both situated north-northwest of Dharampurī,[5] the latter at a distance of 8 kms. and the former about 2 kms. Both the villages appear to have formed a single unit, as in modern times, since they are both known by the common name of Dēul Pādlyā.[6] Ṭhikkārikā is evidently the modern village of Ṭhīkrī on the Bombay-Agra highway, situated in 22° 4’ north latitude and 75° 27’ east longitude, about 11 kms. south of Dharampurī. Both these villages were the headquarters of parganās of the same names in the former State of Dhār and are now included in the Rājapurā tehsīl of the West Nimar District of Madhya Pradesh. About 10 kms. to the south-east of Ṭhīkrī there are two villages of the names of Bēgandā and Bēgandī ; and the latter suggests its identification with the Laghu (or small) i.e., khurd, Vaiṅgaṇapadra of the present inscription (1. 3). The distance between both the groups of villages, i.e. Dēvalā and Pāḍalyā on the one side and Ṭhikrī and Bēgandī on the other, is about 50 kms. and they are both on the south of the Narmadā, indicating that in the 12th century this region was included in the Paramāra kingdom.
________________________________________________

[1] As the name is spelt in 11, 2 and 3, respectively. From the construction it would appear that the village formed the headquarters of the unit of villages grouped for convenience of administration, resembling the expression antaḥpāti in some other records. The expression Brāhmaṇa-māpyakīya is equally inexplicable. Kielhorn took it as used in a technical sense, but possibly it appears to signify correctness of the measurement of the plot, when measured by a Brājmaṇa, who was expected to do the work following the injunctions of law.
[2] In 1. 2 Kielhorn read ‘ubhaya-jana-dvābhyāṁ’ and remarked that it is ungrammatical. My reading of the first word, however, is ubhayaṁ (see text, n. 5), i.e. ubhayaṁ hala-dvayaṁ, and if so, it would signify 4 halas. But as the language is not clear here, this is not certain. It may also be surmised here that the expression jana-dvābhyāṁ has been perhaps wrongly used in the sense of jana-dvayābhyāṁ (?) or dvi- janābhyāṁ, which too is grammatically incorrect.
[3] Taking the month respectively to be pūṛṇimānta and amānta, and the year as Chaitrādi V. expired. In the Ind. Ant., the date 29th (instead of 25th, as given here) appears to be a printing error. For the kārttikādi V. expired, the date would correspond to 15th October (For pūrṇīmānta), and to 13th November (for amānta), of 1136 A.C.
[4] Admitting his inability to explain the letter ra, which is of a much larger size, Kielhorn suggests that “It may stand for rachitam (which we also find in the grants of Arjunavarman), and that it should have been followed by the name of the official who executed the grant”. Op. cit., p. 349, n. 20. But as the name of the official is missing, I take it merely as an ornamentation.
[5] This is the find-spot of Vākpatirājadēva’s grant of Saṁvat 1031 (above No. 4).
[6] We have a number of instances of the type, current in ancient and in modern times. For one of ancient times, see Cunningham, A.S.R.I., Vol. VII, p. 64 ad ibid., Vol. X, p. 69, where he describes two villages of the names of Barō and Paṭhārī in the Bhilsā (Vidishā) District, as forming one and the same village formerly, though now they are at the distance of about 3 kms. from each other,

.....................CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM
VOL.VII ........................................................................PLATE XXVII
A-UJJAIN COPPER-PLATE INSCRIPTION OF YASOVARMA: (VIKRAMA) YEAR 1192

Home Page