North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

BAṬĒŚVARA STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF PARAMARDIDĒVA

The second part of the inscription, which comprises vv. 14-29, contains a description of the ancestors of the Chief Minister of Paramardin who completed a temple begun by his father. Verse 14 introduces a family belonging to the well-known Vasishṭha gōtra, and the next two verses state that in that family was born one Lakshmīdhara, who was well-versed in all the Śāstras and who also performed sacrifices. His son was the twice-born Vatsarāja, who was of good conduct, reputed for his qualities and possessed of righteous wealth (vv. 17-18). His son, again, was Lāhaḍa, who had studied the sacred lore (v. 19). He was placed at the head of his counsellors by the king Madana (v. 20). Lāhaḍa’s wife was Prabhā (v. 21), whose son was Sallakshaṇa, through whom (because of whose efforts) Paramardin became the lord of earth with three eyes.¹

The next two verses are historically important. They mean to say that the illustrious Paramardin entrusted Sallakshaṇa with the government of the kingdom and gave himself to taking delight in licentiousness with women. It is stated here that “he became all the time immersed in the enjoyment of decking the breasts of those whose eyes resembled those of a frightened young deer and who were filled with unbound love”. This information is indeed noteworthy as possibly being the cause of Paramardin’s defeat at the hands of Qutb-ud-dīn Aibak in 1202 A.C. about 6-7 years after the present record was set up and the Minister-in-chief who was then taking care of the kingdom strongly resented surrendering the fort of Kālañjara to the Muslims.²

Verse 24 of the inscription again eulogises Sallakshaṇa; and in the next two verses it is recorded that this person constructed a lofty temple of Vishṇu and one of Śiva. The next three verses introduce his son Purushōttama, who was his successor in the office of minister and who completed the Śiva temple, evidently the same which was begun by his father and at which the inscription was put up.

The third part of the inscription, which commences with v. 30, gives the genealogy of the poet who composed the praśasti. The first of his ancestors introduced here was Lakshmīdhara, who was an ornament of the Gauḍa family. His son was Gadādhara, a supreme chief among the poets and the first among the learned. He was minister of Peace and War of Paramardin. His son Dēvadhara, a chief among the poets (kavīndra), composed the praśasti (v. 31); and it was engraved by Mahārāja,³ the son of Sōmarāja. Verse 33 expresses the hope that the temple may stand for ever; and verse 34, which is the last one of the record, mentions the date by means of word-numerals, stating that it was the Vikrama era connected by wings (2), the faces of the three-eyed, i.e., Śiva (5) and the Ādityas on the fifth of the bright half of Āśvina and on the day of the lord of the day, i. e., Sunday. According to Kielhorn’s calculations, the date corresponds, for the Northern Vikrama 1252, expired, to the 10th September, 1195 A.C. when the fifth tithi ended 14 hours 14 minutes after mean sunrise. It was a Sunday;⁴ and thus the date is quite regular.

Hereafter the inscription comes to an end with the expression which means “may fortune attend”.

The inscription does not mention any geographical name, but from the expression idam = mandiram-, used in v. 26 and from idam, again in v. 29, we may conclude that the inscribed stone was originally set up in a temple where it was found. It may also be mentioned here that it is one of the latest known records of the reign of Paramardidēva.

_________________
¹ This is, Śiva. Sallakshaṇa was the third eye of Paramardin, according to the well-known saying chāraiḥ paśyanti rājānaḥ, etc.
² Elliot and Dowson, Hist. of Ind., Vol. II, p. 228.
³ The first two letters of the third quarter of this verse are lost and hence mahārāja, which also means, ‘great king’, has to be taken as a name. He appears to have been a brother of Dēvarāja who engraved the Mahōbā stone inscription of V.S. 1240 (No. 136) and who too is stated to have been a son of Sōmarāja. This view is of course based on the presumption that Sōmarāja was not a different person.
⁴ Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 30, No. 38. Also see Kielhorn’s remarks in ibid, where he states that Hultzsch’s reading of the date differs. He took the year as V. S. 11[8]2.