|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA deciphering some of the aksharas in the latter part of the record, though the purpose can be made out. ...The characters are Nāgarī of about the thirteenth century A.C. ; and the language is Sanskrit, containing a few mistakes which are drawn attention to and corrected in the text. The orthography does not present anything calling special notice, except that kh has been represented by sh in 1. 12, and following it, the word Brāhmaṇa has been written as Vrāmhaṇa. Mistakes of engraving and grammar will also be drawn attention to and corrected in the text. ... The inscription refers itself to the reign of the illustrious Dēvapāladēva, who is introduced here as endowed with all the royal titles including those of Paramabhaṭṭāraka and Mahārājādhirāja. Its object is to record the donation of plots of land in some villages, the names of which cannot be definitely made out. One of the villages appears to be Dēvadharmapurī, which is probably Udaipur itself, and another, the name of the which is not completely preserved, was situated in Bhṛiṅgārikā-64. The record is dated in the first line as on Thursday, the third of the dark half Mārga, i.e. Mārgaśīrsha, and the year, which is expressed only in numerical symbols, is 1289 ; But the unit figure is indistinct owing to mutilation and also due to subsequent changes made by the scribe himself. [1] Like that of the preceding inscription, the date must be referred to the Vikrama era, and, as calculated by Kielhorn himself, it regularly corresponds to the 2nd of December, 123 [2] A.C. ...Dēvapāla of the inscription is plainly identical with the homonymous Paramāra king of Dhārā, in whose reign the preceding inscription, which is dated only three years before and was found at the same place, was incised. The present inscription, however, is important as it is the latest known epigraph of his time, though from some other sources he is known to have been living even thereafter. For example, the Muslim sources inform us that he was alive in the following year, i.e., in 1233-34 A.C., when Sultān Iltutmish of Delhi made a heavy raid on Mālwā, capturing the fort of Bhilsā (Vidishā), and rushed so far as Ujjain where he demolished the temple of Mahākāla and devastated the surrounding region.[2] That Dēvapāla was alive even thereafter when he revived the situation is known from the Māndhātā grant of the time of his son Jayavarman II, which states that the former killed a Muslim governor (Mlēchchhādhipa) at Bhilsā (Bhillasvāmipura), [3] suggesting his reoccupation of the place. And that this locality continued to be in the possession of the Paramāras during the reign of Jayavarman (II) is also known from two inscriptions-one from Bhilsā itself, dated V. 1320 (1263 A.C.) and the other, dated V. 1326(1269 A.C.) from Paṭhārī, which is only about 55 kms. further north by east of the place. [4]
... Another interest of the inscription lies in its mentioning Dēvapāla with the paramount epithets of Paramabhaṭṭāraka and Mahārājādhirāja in 11. 4-6. The Harsūd inscription, no doubt applies these titles to his name, but along with them he bears also that of Mahākumāra; in his Māndhātā grant he is called only a Mahārāja ; and in the preceding inscription too, though it claims for him the high-sounding epithets, we have for him the title only of a Mahārāja in 1. 5. Thus the present record is the only epigraphic evidence to claim Imperial titles for Dēvapāla.
...Of the geographical names mentioned in the inscription, Bhṛiṅgārī (1.8) is doubtless
the same as Bhṛiṅgārikā appearing in an inscription from the same place and recording the
grant of a village by Lūṇapas͝āka in favour of the God Vaidyanātha in 1173 A.C.
[5] It appears to be
represented by the modern village Bhiraṅgāvalī, about 6 kms. north-east of Udaipur. It is interesting to note that whereas in that inscription it is called a pathaka, in the present record it is
mentioned as the principal village of the group of 64. Dēvadharmapurī (1. 10), if the reading
is correct, seems to be the village of Udaipur itself, we have already seen above. Pañchamukhapattana I am unable to trace in the locality, but the name suggests that it may have then
[1] This figure appears as incised either 3 or 4 at first and later on corrected to 9 (?).
...................CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|