South Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE VATSAGULMA BRANCH

Again, were not equal ; four of them received only half a share¹ and the remaining four, two shares each.

...The plates are dated in the thirty-seventh year (expressed in numerical symbols) evidently of the reign of the donor Vindhyaśakti, on the 4 day of the first fortnight of Hēmanta. The date is noteworthy ; for it is one of the two season dates occurring in the grants of the Vākāṭakas. The grant was written by the Sēnāpati Vaṇhu (Vishṇu) and was issued from Vatsagulma.

... The inscription gives the following genealogy of the donor Vindhyaśakti :−Pravarasēna, his son Sarvasēna and the latter son Vindhyaśakti. In connection with Vindhyaśakti the inscription purports to state that he had performed the Agnishṭōma, Āptōryama, Vājapēya, Jyōtishṭōma, Bṛihaspatisava Sādyaskra and four Aśvamēdhas, and that he was a Hāritīputra (a son, i.e., a descendant of Hāritī) and Dharmamahārāja. These two latter epithets are found applied to a Vākāṭaka king in this grant only. They seem to have been adopted from the grants of the Kadambas. As only one Vindhyaśakti was known before the discovery of the present plates viz., he who is mentioned in the Purāṇas and in the inscription in Cave XVI at Ajaṇṭā, it was at first naturally supposed that the donor of the plates was identical with the celebrated founder of the Vākāṭaka dynasty.

... The present inscription was therefore supposed to carry the genealogy of the Vākātakas two generations before Vindhyaśakti. It has since been pointed out that the genealogical portion of the present grant is faulty in construction ; for it seems to repeat the epithet Dharmamahārāja three times in connection with Vindhyaśakti. Besides, it credits Vindhyaśakti with the performance of almost the same number of identical sacrifices as those mentioned in connection with Pravarasēna I in all other Vākāṭaka grants². It seems therefore that the expressions śrī-Pravarasēna-pautrasya in line 3 and śrī-Sarvasēna-putrasya in line 4 are to be taken as śrī-Pravarasēnasya pautrasya and śrī-Sarvasēnasya putrasya, so that the preceding adjectival expressions in the genitive case including the epithet Dharmamahārājasya would agree with śrī-Pravarasēnasya and śrī-Sarvasēnasya respectively. According to this construction, all the three kings, Pravarsēna, Sarvasēna and Vindhyaśakti, would receive the epithet Dharmamahārāja, and there would thus be no tautology. Besides, the expression Agnishṭōm-Āptoryyāma . . . . . .chatur-Aśvamēdhayājinaḥ and Samrāja [ḥ] would now qualify Śrī-Pravarasēnasya, showing that it was Pravarasēna, and not Vindhyaśakti, who performed these sacrifices and assumed the title Samrāṭ. This is quite in keeping with the statement in other Vākāṭaka grants. Pravarasēna who heads the genealogical list in the present plates would thus be Pravarasēna I who, according to the Purāṇas, was the son of Vindhyaśakti. The Vākāṭaka king who granted the present plates should therefore be called Vindhyaśakti II. He thus becomes the great-grandson of Vindhyaśakti I. The genealogy in the present plates would therefore be as follows-

........................................................................Pravarasēna I
                                                                                  |
                                                                               (son)
                                                                           Sarvasēna
                                                                                  |
                                                                               (son)
                                                                        Vindhyasakti II

...This would therefore be a different branch of the Vākāṭaka family ; for according to the genealogy in several inscriptions of Pravarasēna II and Prīthivishēṇa II, Pravarasena I
______________

¹ The text has āddhaka in line 10 which probably means ‘a half’. Cf. aṁsik-āddha in line 21 of the Koṇḍamuḍi plates of Jayavarman. Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 317.
² See D.C. Sircar’s note on the present plates in Ind. Hist. Quart., Vol. XVI, pp. 182 f.