North Indian Inscriptions

SOCIAL CONDITION

Though Yājṇavalkya has not mentioned the untouchability of nay castes, Aparārka castes, Aparārka cites with apparent approval a passage from the Hārīta-smṛiti that on touching a dyer, a washerman, a hunter, a fisherman, a butcher, an actor, a vendor of spirituous liquor etc., one should purify himself with a bath. [1]

.. In the age of the Śilāhāras the position of women seems to have improved so far as their right of inheritance was concerned. Yājñavalkya mentions the wife as the first their heir to the property of a person who dies sonless. [2] This was in opposition to the view of earlier law-givers like Manu, but Aparārka reconciles the conflicting views after a lengthy discussion. He says that a chaste widow will succeed to her husband’s property. If she is unchaste, other heirs like the dead man’s parents, his brothers etc. will succeed. [3] Several Śilāhāra inscriptions mention aputra-dhana as going to the donee of the grant of village,[4] thereby implying that in other circumstances it would escheat to the crown. This does not contradict the aforementioned dictate of Yājñavalkya. The term aputra in such cases has to be understood in the sense of one who dies without leaving any heir. [4]

.. Yajñavalkya does not mention the custom of Satī. Aparārka states the different views on the matter and ultimately supports that of Vishṇu that on the death of her husband, a women should either immolate herself with his body or lead a self-restrained life. [5] There are no references to Satīs in any inscription of the Śilāhāras.

.. There were in that age a few Arab settlements on the western coast. The Rāshṭrakūṭas, the suzerains of Śilāhāras, had been friendly to the Arabs, and even appointed some of them as governors of provinces. The Saṁyāna-maṇḍala, situated to the north of the kingdom of the Northern Śilāhāras, was under the rule of an Arab feudatory of the Rāshṭrakūṭas. [6] There were occasional clashes between these two feudatories. After the downfall of the Rāshṭrakūṭas, the Śilāhāra king Aparājita conquered the Saṁyāna-maṇḍala and annexed it to his kingdom. [7] There was another Arab settlement in South Koṅkaṇ, though its exact location is not known. It was on friendly terms with the Kadambas of Goā. When the Kadambas invaded North Koṅkaṇ, this Arab ally seems to have taken an active part in the devastation of the country. It is stated in the Khārepāṭan plates that the Yavana soldiers oppressed gods and Brāhmaṇas, but Anantapāla ultimately drove them out. [8] Still, there were a few Arabs settled in the kingdom of the Northern Śilāhāras. Some of them seem to have been sailors (nōrikakarmakaras). [9] Some referred to as Khōjās were cultivators and owners of fields. [10] The merchants Alli, Yamahara, and Madhumata, mentioned in the Chiñchaṇī plate [11] of the reign of Chhitta rāja, appear to have been prominent citizens of Saṁyāna. There may have been many others like them living peacefully in the Silahara kingdoms.
_______________

[1] Aparārka, I, 279. रजकश्‍चर्मकृच्चैव व्याधजालोपजीविनौ ।
निर्णेजक: सौनिकश्‍च नट:शैलूषकस्तथा
चक्री ध्वजी वद्यधाती ग्राम्यकुक्कुटशूकरौ । एभिर्यदङ्गं स्पृष्टं
स्याच्छिरोवर्ज द्विजातिषु । तोयेन क्षालनं कृत्वा आचान्ता: प्रयता मता: ॥
[2] Yājñavalkya, II, 135.
[3] See कथं तर्हि विरोधापहार : । उच्यते- " अपुत्रा शयनं भर्तु:"
इत्यादिमनुवाक्योक्तगुणा पत्नी पित्रुभ्रातृसद्भावेपि
स्वयमेव पतिधनं समग्रं गृह्लाति, पत्युश्च श्राद्भादि करोति । Aparārka, II, p. 742.
[4] No. 5, line 66; No. lines 67-68; No. 7, line 61 etc. A.K. Majumdar thinks that the old law continued till the time of Chaulukya Kumārapāla. This is unlikely.
[5] See तस्माद्विधित: प्रवर्तमानाया ब्राह्मण्या
अनुगमनाद्दोषो न विद्यते । शोकादिप्रवृत्तायास्तु भवत्येवेति । Aparārka, I, p. 112.
[6] Ep. Ind., Vol. XXXII, pp. 45 f.
[7] No. 5, line 40.
[8] No. 19, lines 52-55.
[9] No. 19, lines 79-80.
[10] No. 14, lines 149.
[11] No. , line 11.

Home Page