North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA

MOḌĀSĀ COPPER PLATE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME ON BHOJADEVA

maṁḍalē, 1.6 and chaṁdrikā 1. 19 ; and (5) engraving medial ē and one of the components of medial ō as pṛishṭha-mātrā or śirō-mātrā ; the former of these (i.e., pṛishṭha-mātrā) occasionally appears only as a curved stroke, as in dēva, 11. 4 and 5, and madhyē in 1. 10 ; and the latter (i.e. śirō-mātrā) is sometimes seen with its top curved to the right so as to resemble the superscript r or a hook, cf,, e.g., maṁḍalē 1. 6.

...The inscription begins with the auspicious symbol for Siddham, which is followed by the date, specified both in words and figures, to be Sunday, the first of the bright half of the month of Jyēshṭha, in the (Vikrama) Saṁvat 1067, which, taking the year to be Kārttikādi, according to the practice current in Gujarāt, regularly corresponds to the sixth of May, 1011 A.C. Then are introduced four rules of the Paramāra ruling house of Mālwā ; they are parama bhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja and Paramēśvara, the illustrious Sīyakadēva, his successor the P.M.P. and illustrious Vākpatirājadēva, his successor the P.M.P. and illustrious Sindhurajadēva, and lastly, his successor the P.M.P. and illustrious Bhōjadēva. Then is specified the main object of the record where we are told that during the sovereignty (or in the kingdom) [1] of Bhōjadēva his subordinate ruler Vatsarāja issued a charter (śāsana) in the village of Śayanapāṭaka in the Arddhāshṭama-maṇḍala of Mōhaḍavāsaka, in favour of a Chāturjātakīya Brāhmaṇa of the name of Dēdda or Dēddāka of the Upānasya gōtra who had hailed from Harshapura. This charter was in honour of the gift of two halas of land worth growing kōdrava (a species of grain eaten by the poor), mudga (a kind of pules), vrīhi (paddy) and tila (sesamum) and situated on the borders of the village and also inside it so as to include the corn in the threshing floor adjoining to the houses (11. 6-13).

...The language of the grant portion of the document, which is mentioned above, is rather ambiguous, and, as Dr. Sircar has rightly observed, “it may also indicate that it was the Brāhmaṇa Dērda (i.e. Dēdda) or Dēdd¬āka, who was the donor of the grant and that Vatsarāja merely ratified the transaction.” [2] This view appears to be justified and more reasonable when we consider that the word Deddāka with all its adjectives is in the sixth case, showing his ownership of the land, and the fourth case, along with all the epithets governing the word sutāya. And the expression “Dēddākasya dharma-hētavē”, to increase the religious act of Dēddāka, goes in support of this suggestion. The only difficulty in accepting this view, however, appears to be that the name of the donee is not mentioned here.

...The grant is stated to have been made according to the rules (śāsanāchārēṇa,1. 12), and it is interesting to note the procedure, viz., that the land was first examined by (the representatives of) the Vallōṭakīya and Vāhīya Brāhmaṇas who were known to be the royal preceptors (rājādhyakshas), probably also constituting the majority of the residents of the village, Ṭhakkura Rāṇaka and the paṭṭakilas, Saṁvāka, Lallāka, Gōggaka and others ; then it was actually shown to the Brāhmaṇa donee, and finally, was given away in the presence of about half a dozen people whose names are recorded in 11. 16-19. Thereafter, we are told that the charter was written by Chhaḍḍaka, son of Amnaka (1. 20) In the end we have the Sign-manual “Śrī-Vachchharājasya”, who was evidently the same as Vatsarāja, mentioned above in 1.7. It is interesting to note that the king’s signature is in Prākrit and not in Sanskrit, as in 1.7 above, as is due to the composer of the record. Here the inscription ends, with the customary expression “maṁgalaṁ mahā-śrīḥ.”

...It is difficult to identify Vatsarāja who is stated to have been enjoying 750 villages in 1.7 above. The expression used with his name here is bhōtkāra-mahārājaputra ; and Dr. D.C. Sircar, who has suggested that the word bhōtkāra may have been a mistake for bhōktṛi, is also inclined to hold that Bhojadēva may have had a son bearing the name bhōktāra, whom we do not know. [3] But unless we know about the existence of Bhōja’s son with this name from any other source, this view appears to be hardly tenable, and what appears justifiable to us is that the word bhōtkāra is wrongly engraved for bhōktāra, which is an error for bhōktṛi. We have exactly a similar expression, viz. grāmāṇāṁ bhōktāraḥ śrī-Yaśōvarmā, in 1.7 of the Kālvaṇ plate inscription of Yaśovarman, as will be noticed below while dealing with that record ; and when we know that,
________________________________________________

[1] The word in the original is rājyē, and Dr. Sircar observes that it is difficult to say whether it means ‘during the sovereignty’ or ‘in the kingdom’. Here we may add still another meaning of rājyē, viz., ‘government administration of the kingdom’, which too equally suits here. But from the use of the word maṇḍala, which just follows it. what appears to be the sense here is that of a kingdom.
[2] Sircar, op. cit., p. 193.
[3] Ibid.

Home Page