The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Preface

Contents

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Corrigenda

Images

Introduction

The Discovery of the Vakatakas

Vakataka Chronology

The Home of The Vakatakas

Early Rulers

The Main Branch

The Vatsagulma Branch

Administration

Religion

Society

Literature

Architecture, Sculpture and Painting

Texts And Translations  

Inscriptions of The Main Branch

Inscriptions of The Feudatories of The Main Branch

Inscriptions of The Vatsagulma Branch

Inscriptions of The Ministers And Feudatories of The Vatsagulma Branch

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

ADMINISTRATION

 

administration of the kings, but the description they give of Pṛithivīsheṇa I is significant, He was marked out not only for his personal bravery, intelligence and political widsom but also for such virtues as truthfulness, straightforwardness and compassion. He took pride in being Dharmavijayin i.e. a righteous conqueror.1 This means that he never waged any war for self-aggrandisement. He conferred his gifts on worthy recipients. He strove to follow in his life the example of Yudhishṭhira, the well-known Pāṇḍava king of yore, whose name has been held in great veneration throughout the ages. We have no account of the lives of other kings of this dynasty, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we may suppose that they also tried to rule in the same manner. Pravarasēna II in particular is said to have established Kṛita-Yuga (Golden Age) by his wise rule. It may also be noted in this connection that Harishēṇa, the last known Vākāṭaka king, is described in an Ajaṇṭā inscription of his feudatory as one who secured the well-being of his subjects,2

...Unlike the Kushāṇas and the Guptas of North India, the Vākāṭakas did not assume high-sounding titles like Shāhānushāhi or Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja, Paramēśvara, etc.,3 but contented themselves with the older modest style of Mahārāja.4 They did not also claim any divine origin,5 but believed that they owed their royal fortune to the grace of their ishṭa-dēvatā. Thus, Rudrasena II is described as one whose royal fortune was due to the grace of the god Chakrapāṇi (Vishṇu).6 His son Pravarasēna II is said to have obtained his weapon of Śūla by the special favour of the god Śambhu (Śiva).7 Their feudatories, the Pāṇḍava kings of Mekalā, however, who had come into contact with the Guptas, describe themselves in their grants as parama-guru-dēvat-ādhidaivata-viśesha8 i.e. highly venerable personages, deities and supreme divinities. They thus claimed superhuman power. Again, Lokaprakāśā, the queen of the Pāṇḍavaṁśī king Bharatabala, is described as born in a family descended from gods.9 The Vākāṭakas did not claim for themselves descent from any god or eponymous hero, but these feudatories of Mēkalā proudly proclaimed their birth in the venerable Pāṇḍava-vaṁśa descended from the Moon. The contemporary rulers of Mahākāntāra (modern Bastar District and the adjoining territory) similarly claimed that they were descended from the king Nala of epic fame10.

... The Vākāṭaka grants mention three kinds of feudatories, viz., (i) those who submitted to the Emperor when they came to know of his resolve to subdue them ; (ii) those who
______________

1 Cf. No. 4, line 8; No. 6, line 10 etc. His ancestor Pravarasēna I and some members of the Vatsagulma branch assumed the title of Dharmamahārāja indicative of their piety and their support to the Vedic religion.
2 No. 27, line 21.
3 C.I.I., Vol. III, No. 1, line 8 ; No. 5, lines 2-3 etc.
4 It has been supposed that the title Mahārāja assumed by the Vākāṭakas as contrasted with Mahārājādhirāja mentioned in connection with the Gupta Emperors indicates the inferior political status of the former. H.C.I.P., Vol. III, p. 180. It should, however, be noted that the kings of the Vatsagulma branch had assumed the same title even before the time of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II, when there could have been no question of subordination to the Guptas. See No. 22, line 1-3. Pravarasēna I’s title samrāṭ was due to his perforamance of Vājapēya sacrifices. His title Mahārāja is also sometimes mentioned along with it.
5 The epithet Hāritīputra applied to Pravarasena I in the Bāsim plates (No. 23, line 3) perhaps originally meant ‘a son of (i.e. favoured by) 6the Buddhist goddess Hāritī.’ Later, it came to mean a descendant (or disciple) of the sage Hārīti. Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 31; Vikramāṅkadēvacharita, I, 58.
6 No. 3, line 13.
7 No. 15, line 1.
8 No. 19, line 9 and 14. The Guptas assumed the title of Paramadaivala also. See Ep. Ind., Vol. XV, p. 130.
9 No. 19. line 29.
10 Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 102.

<< - 2 Page