South Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MAIN BRANCH

...Both the sets of plates were issued by Pravarasēna II of the Vākāṭaka dynasty. His genealogy is traced here from Pravarasēna I exactly as in the preceding Jāmb plates, his maternal grandfather Chandragupta II being called Dēvagupta. The plates of set A, the record on which begins with dṛishṭam, were issued from Nadhivardhana. The place of issue in the case of these of Set B is unknown owing to the loss of its plate. The former record the grant of the village Mahalla-Lāta in the Asi bhukti, which was situated in the mārga (subdivision) of Śailapura, while the latter register the donation of two villages, viz., Dīrghadraha in the Pākkaṇarāshṭra and Mahallama-Laṭa. Of these latter villages, the second is plainly identical with the village Mahalla-Lāṭa of Set A as it is specified exactly like it. The grant recorded in Set B is, therefore, later than that of Set A. The donee of both the grants was the same viz., Sūryasvāmin of the Kāśyapa gōtra and Taittirīya śākhā, who was a resident of the place Pravarēśvara-shaḍviṁśati-vāṭaka. Both the grants were, again, made at the victorious place of religious worship (Vaijayika-dharma-sthāna) for the increase of religious merit, life, strength, victory and fortune of the donor. The date of the first record is missing, but that of the second is given at the end. The latter was written, while Chitravarman was the Sēnāpati, on the thirteenth tithi of the bright fortnight of Kārttika in the eleventh regnal year.

...As stated above, the second set of plates records the grant of two villages, one of which had already been given by the same king to the same donee by the first set. Why it was found necessary to include the village again in the second grant is not known. Cases of the issue of a fresh charter recording again a previously made gift are indeed not unknown ; but in such cases the circumstances which necessitated the issue of a fresh charter such as a foreign invasion or the loss or damage of the earlier charter by fire etc., are generally specified¹. No such reasons are given in the present case. In fact, both the charters purport to have been granted by the same king and the interval between their dates could not have been more than ten years. This therefore raises the question if the second charter, or at least the second plate of it which recaords the grant of two villages, is a forgery². In favour of such a supposition may be adduced the circumstance that the writing on the second plate of set B begins and ends with the same words as that on the second plate of Set A, so that the former plate could have been easily substituted for the latter. It may, however, be pointed out that there are no other circumstances suggesting such a forgery. As shown above, both the plates of Set B are smaller in size than those of set A so that not one but two plates must have been so substituted. But there was apparently no need to replace the third plate of the first grant. Again, the similar formation of letters and the occurrence of the same orthographical peculiarities and grammatical mistakes in both the records make it highly probable that both the grants were written by the same clerk in the Secretariat of the Vākāṭakas. The mention of Chitravarman as Sēnāpati in Set B is another point in favour of the genuineness of that set; for, from the Chammak plates of Pravarasēna II we learn that Chitravarman held that office till at least the 18th year of
___________________

¹ See e.g. the Barah copper-plate of Bhōjadēva, Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 18, and the Nidhanpur copper-plates of Bhāskaravarman, ibid., Vol. XII, p. 76.
² Dr. N. P. Chakravarti has suggested that the grant of two villages in Plate II of Set B was found to be wrong on examination and that this plate was meant to be replaced by Plate II of Set A which was subsequently engraved. He has drawn attention to the ornamental mark found after atisṛishṭaḥ in Plate II of Set A, which, according to him, was intended to prevent any unauthorized addition in the blank space left at the end of that line. He has not, however, offered any satisfactory explanation for the circumstance that the unwanted plate was not removed or cancelled.