North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

his camp at Vilāsapura. The object of it is to record the bestowal, by him, of a plot of land measuring ten halas, in the village Lauvā in the territorial division Karigavā, on a Brāhmaṇa-Paṇḍita of the name of Kēśava, the son of Dvivēdin Tīkava, grandson of Rāṇaka (or Rāüta?). Tihuṇapāla and great-grandson of Chaturvēdin (?) Valaha. The date of the record, as expressed both in figures and words, in ll. 8-9, is Wednesday, the eighth of the dark half of Kārtika, of Vikrama 1233, which regularly corresponds to 27th October, 1176 A. C.¹ The inscription, or tāmrapaṭṭa as it is called in v. 7 (l. 22), was written by the order of the king, by Śubhānanda of the Vāstavya family, who knew all the śāstras and was the writer of the legal documents (dharmalēkhin). It was engraved by the artisan (śilpin) Pālhaṇa, the son of Rajapāla, who, as we know, engraved some other inscriptions also, as we have seen while editing the Ichchhāvar grant.²

The inscription opens with a variant of the symbol for Siddham, and with the oft-quoted verse eulogising the royal house of the Chandrātrēya kings, it gives the genealogy of the house for three kings, viz., the Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja and Paramēśvara, the illustrious Pṛithvīvarman, his successor, the P.M.P., the illustrious Madanavarman, and lastly, his successor the P.M.P., the illustrious Paramardin who is also mentioned to have been a devout worshipper of Mahēśvara (Śiva), and the lord of Kālañjara (ll. 2-4). This portion, which is evidently copied from the earlier grants of the ruler, does not furnish any new historical information. Lines 6-13 record the formal portion of the grant, stating that the king, from his camp at Vilāsapura, and on the date which we have seen above, donated ten halas of land pertaining to the village Lauvā, falling in the territorial division (vishaya) of Karigavā, to the Brāmaṇa-Paṇḍita Kēśava, whose ancestry we have seen above and who belonged to the Kāśyapa gōtra, with the pravaras Kaśyapa, Avatsāra and Naidhruva, who studied the Vājasanēya śākhā and who had emigrated from the bhaṭṭāgrahāra (land donated to learned Brāhmaṇas) Mutāüsha.

The land which is here stated to be worth ploughing by ten halas, as we have seen the significance of the expression, is also said to be measured by its sowing capacity of seven-and- half drōṇas of seeds, ‘as to be sown broadcast’ and leaving a dividing line or boundary after each prastha of seed sown. The same expression occurs also in the Mahōbā inscription of the same king issued only three years earlier in V.S. 1230 ;³ and while dealing with the same we have discussed it fully ; here it is also interesting to note that the way of recording the measurement of land is also mentioned in the Augāsī grant of Paramardin’s grandfather Madanavarman, issued in V. S. 1190.⁴ From all these instances it may safely be concluded that the method of measuring land by the quantity of seed required to sow it was not only popularly known but also officially recognished.⁵ The grant was to be, as we are further told, perpetually enjoyed by a succession of sons and son’s sons (ll. 12-13).

The terms of the grant are mentioned in ll. 13-16 ; and accordingly, the donee was endowed with all the usual right over the land, without any obstruction. This portion is followed by five of the ordinary imprecatory and benedictory stanzas, and thereafter we have the sign-manual of Paramardin. Then the charter comes to end with two stanzas, the first of which mentions the name of the writer and the second, of the engraver, as seen above.

As for the localities mentioned in the inscription, Kālañjara (l. 4), as often seen, is the renowned fort in the Bāndā District of Uttar Pradesh and a stronghold of the Chandēlla kings. The village Lauvā (l. 6) has been identified by Venis and it is said to have been situated 5 kms. west of Pachhār ;⁶ and Karigavā which is mentioned as a vishaya in l. 5, cannot definitely be identified as in the region of Jhānsī there are several villages with this name. But as suggested
__________________________
¹ See Ep. Ind., Vol. X, p. 46. The year should be taken as Chaitrādi, expired.
² Above, No. 129.
³ Above, No. 130, text, l. 11.
⁴ No. 118; Text, 11. 7-8.
⁵ For comparison, we may note that in the surrounding regions also land was measured both ways, viz., by its capacity of being ploughed and also by that of quantity of seed sown. Sometimes both these methods are mentioned in one instance and sometimes either. See C.I.I., Vol. IV, Nos. 19, 20 and 42, ll. 10, 10 and 32, respectively.
⁶ This identification seems to be in complete accord with his notice that the village contains some remains of Chandēlla workmanship, viz., a large well lined with square stones and “a granite slab that clearly formed originally part of a Chandēlla building but now used as a Satī stone” (p. 46, n.).