North Indian Inscriptions

SUPPLEMENTARY INSCRIPTIONS

king Rajyapala. Muslim chroniclers are not unanimous in mentioning his name ; for whereas Ibn-ul-Asīr calls him Bida,^[1] Nizamuddin,^[2] Firishta^[3] and Gardizi^[4] refer to him as Nandā. Considering all these different readings, Cunningham thought that Nandā of these writers is a misreading for Gaṇḍa ;^[6] and this view was accepted by Hultzsch,^[6] Smith,^[7] Ray,^[8] Tripathi,^[9] and some other scholars. But the present inscription, which is dated in 1004 A.C., shows that Vidyādhara came to the throne immediately after Dhaṅga, and thus both the names referred to above, viz., Nandā and Bidā should be taken as denoting only Bidā, obviously the Prakrit form of the Sanskrit word Vidyā and thus signifying only Vidyādhara. This also shows that Rājyapāla, the ruler of Kanauj who is said to have acknowledged the sovereignty of Mahmūd, was killed at the instance not of Gaṇḍa but of Vidyādhara. This conclusion is also in agreement with the statement of the fragmentary Mahōbā inscription, which gives to Vidyādhara the credit of bringing about the destruction of the king of Kānyakubja, i.e., Rājyapāla, and also with that of the Dubkuṇḍ inscription of the time of the Kachchhapaghāta king Vikramasiṁha, which states that his predecessor Arjuna killed Rājyapāla at the instance of Vidyādhara.^[10]

As regards the geographical names figuring in the inscription, none of them can be satisfactorily identified for want o f details. The gift-village Isauni and the territorial division Vārāngī however, suggest their identification with the modern places respectively appearing in the maps as Isanagar and Barnagar, the former of which is situated almost about 45 kms. east, and the latter about the same distance in the south, from the find-spot of the plate. As regards the various bhaṭṭa-grāmas mentioned in the inscription as the places of the origin of the donees, no name corresponding any of them appears on the maps ; and besides this, they may also have been in distant regions, and hence I have not attempted to identify any of them. It may here be observed, however, that one of them, viz., Paṇikavaḍa, occurs in a Chandēlla inscription.^[11]

TEXT^[12]

__________________
^[1] D.H.N.I., Vol. I, pp. 604 ff.
^[2] See T.A., Vol. I, p. 12.
^[3] T.F., (Briggs), Vol. I, pp. 63 and 68.
^[4] K.Z.A., .p. 76. Also see D.H.N.I., Vol. I, p. 640, n. 4.
^[5] A.S.I.R., Vol. II, p. 452.
^[6] See Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 219.
^[7] Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXVII, p. 128.
^[8] See D.H.N.I., Vol. I, p. 606 ; Vol. II, p. 688, n, 4.
^[9] Hist. of Kanauj, p. 285, n. 5. Also see J. D. L., Vol. X, p. 74, n. This led scholars to suggest that Vidyādhara was then the crown-prince who led the army. See Hist. of Kanauj. p. 285 ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XXXVII, pp. 128 and 142.
^[10] See above, No. 113, v. 22 ; and No. 154, v. 8.
^[11] Above, No. 119, Text, l. 19.
^[12] From the original plate and an impression.
^[13] Expressed by a symbol represented by the Nāgarī ū with the sign of anusvāra above. ^[14] The upper circle of the visarga is engraved as the Nāgarī ō and the lower is omitted. The names of Chandēlla kings, also end in Brahma in the Pṛithvīrāja-Rāsō (Nāgarī Prachāriṇī Sabha), pp. 25-28.
^[15] For the reading of the consonant in- gō, see the same in Gaṇḍa in line 2, and for that of tvā, see the same letter in datvā in line 6. The second appear to be a strange name. The sense of Chāha above. is not clear to me, but the reading is certain. Probably vin = atra is intended (?).
16 Sandhi is not made here and also in the next line in ddha and I.