|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA name of Banī, which may have been the Vaṇikā of the present grant. Both these places are in the present Mandsaur District of Madhya Pradesh ; and somewhere in the neighbourhood may have been the Hūṇa-maṇḍala of the inscription. Following the suggestions of Dikshit that the Hūṇa-maṇḍala “must be taken as the north part of the Mālwā plateau”, my suggestions for identifying both these places are more suitable to the District of Mandsaur rather than that of Ujjain.[1] Reference is also invited in this respect to Yaśōdharman’s success against the Hūna Mihirakula as mentioned in the Mandsaur pillar inscription;[2] and it is possible that after this defeat some of the Hūṇas may have continued to stay around Mandsaur and in the district itself. ...Thus we get a strong evidence to corroborate the indentifications proposed by me, and it seems more plausible in indentifying the places connected with the gift village mentioned in the inscriptions; and, if accepted, it would throw a welcome light in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Paramāra dominions in the time of Vākpatidēva, and would also substantiate what I have stated while editing his Ujjain grant,[3] viz., that a part of the present Mandsaur District was included in his dominions. According to the Udaipur praśasti,[4] Vākpati’s father Sīyaka defeated the Hūṇas; and if this allusion refers to the people residing in the vicinity of the present Mandsaur District, we travel on certain grounds while proposing the above identifications. ...Gaonrī, the find-spot of the plates, is about 130 kms. south-southeast of Banī, where the land was donated, as we have seen above; and how the plates possessed by a donee at that place could be found at this great distance has also to be considered here. While proposing to identify the grant village with Benkā, as seen above, Dikshit states that the distance between this village and the provenance of the plates is about 40 miles (64 kms.); but the first mentioned person in the present grant who may likely have been the ‘sole proprietor and the senior partner’ thereof may have carried with him the charter, as he also the sole recipient of the grant that follows.[5] The view is probable and applies equally in accepting our identification of the village, though the distance is rather greater in the latter case.
...The main body of the inscription recording the details of the grants ends with the usual injunctions stating that the gifts were intended to be enjoyed by the donees perpetually (11.42.44); and following this statement, we have five of the customary imprecatory and benedictory verses, which are exactly the same as to be found in the other grants of Vākpatirāja. Line 52 mentions another date when the charter was actually issued, as we have seen above. Then we find the expression svayam=ājñā, i.e. ‘(this is) the order (of the king) himself’, followed by the name of the dāpaka who was Rudrāditya, the same person who was also the dāpaka of the Ujjain grant of the king issued only two years before and who was his minister, as we know from some other sources.[6] The charter ends with the sign-manual of the king, engraved in continuation of the writing and in aksharas which are smaller and thinner in size. ...With reference to the geographical names mentioned in the inscription, it may be stated
here that K.N. Dikshit has identified most of them, particularly those which are in Bengal; and
I have made an attempt to locate some others. Magadha (1.14), Madhayadēśa (11. 15 and 26)
and Lāṭa-dēśa (11.36 and 38) are all well known. Kulāñchā (1.19) is proposed to be identified
with Kulāñch in the Bogra District of North Bengal.[7] Sāvathika or Sāvathikā (11. 29-30)
is most likely the tract more or less corresponding to North Bogra and South Dinājpur, in Bengal,
and Dardurikā and Mitila-pāṭaka (11.29 and 30) may perhaps be ‘Dadra in Panchbibi Thānā
of the Bogra District and Mitail or Mitialpārā, both of which are in the Bogra District’. Dakshiṇa-
Rāḍha (1. 21) is also a part of Bengal, but Bilvavāsa (1.21) which is said to have been included
in it cannot be identified. The bhaṭṭa-grāmas mentioned in 11. 14, 17, 18 and 33 may denote
[1] For Dikshit’s remarks, see ibid. On the other hand, Āvrā is an ancient place where excavations were con-
ducted, for which see Ind. Arch., A Review, for 1959-60, p. 24 ; and Journ. of M.P. Itihāsa Parishad,
Number IV. pp. 13 ff. The village Banī contains a big pond, justifying the statement of the inscription
समस्ततलकै : सहिते वणिकाग्रामे (1.8). तलक =pond.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|