South Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MAIN BRANCH

mention of this grandson of Pravarasēna I, viz., Rudrasēna I. The plate purports to have been issued from Padmapura.

...It seems that the inscription on the present plate was not completed; for the word dṛishṭam ‘seen’ which usually occurs in the beginning of finished charters of the Vākāṭakas as a mark of authorization¹ is conspicuous by its absence here. There is in fact sufficient space for three letters in the beginning of the first line, which shows that the word dṛishṭam was intended to be incised there after the record was completed. It may again be noted that the present plate leaves space sufficient for five letters at the end of the last line. The word Gautamīputrasya which follows Bhavanāga-dauhitrasya in other Vākātaka records could very well have been written in that space. In fact the engraver seems to have begun to incise that word; for faint traces of the top portion of the first syllable of that word can be mentioned on the plate. That the engraver left so much space at the end shows that he received an order to stop before he could complete the line. Whether the record was incised on another set of plates cannot be determined at present.

...It is also difficult to determine who intended to issue the present plate. The general resemblance between the characters of the present plate and those of the grants of Pravarasēna II suggests that it might be that Vākāṭaka king. It may, however, be noted that almost all the grants of Pravarasēna II are issued from either his earlier capital Nandivardhana or the later one, Pravarapura. If he had intended to issue the present plate, Pravarapura, not Padmapura, would, in all probability, have been mentioned as the place of issue. Besides, the palaeographic evidence detailed above seems to show that the present plate may be assigned to a later date. Padmapura is not known to have been a holy place; nor is a word like vāsakāt added to it, showing that it was the site of the donor’s camp. It seems therefore that Padmapura was the capital of a successor of Pravarasena II who intended to issue this charter.

...It seems that the capital was shifted to Padmapura during the reign of Pravarasēna II’s son Narendrasēna. The description in the Bālāghāṭ plates that Pṛithivīshēṇa II raised his sunken family suggests that there was some foreign invasion during the reign of his father Narēndrasēna when he was reduced to great straits. The invasion was probably by the Nala king Bhavadattavarman, who later occupied the western portion of the Vākāṭaka dominion and ruled from the erstwhile Vākāṭaka capital Nandivardhana. The Vākāṭaka king Narēndrasēna in this emergency appears to have shifted the seat of his government to Padmapura in this emergency appears to have shifted the seat of his government Mēkalā and Kōsalā. Later, Narēndrasena’s son Pṛithivīshēṇa II drove the enemy out of his ancestral dominion and even carried the war into his territory. He appears to have invaded and burnt the Nala capital Pushkarī as stated in the P-ḍāgaḍh stone inscription.

... The mention of Padmapura in the present plate is also interesting from another point of view. The well-known Sanskrit poet Bhavabhūti, who flourished towards the close of the seventh century A.C., mentions Padmapura in Vidarbha as his ancestral home. It is not unlikely that his ancestors who were great Mīmāṁsakas and performed such great Vedic sacrifices as the Vājapēya were specially invited to their capital Padmapura by the Vākāṭaka kings who were patrons of Vedic learning and themselves performed great Vedic sacrifices. After the decline of the Vākāṭakas there were no great royal dynasties ruling in Vidarbha. Bhavabhūti seems there-
_______________

¹The only exceptions known so’ far are (i) the Ṛiddhapur plates of Prabhāvatīguptā (No. 8) and the India Office plate of Dēvasēna (No. 24). It does not occur also in the Bālāghāṭ plates of Pṛithivīshēṇa II, but that charter also was unfinished.