South Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY GURJARAS

forms of the initial ī in Īśvara, 1.40 and ē in ēsha, 1.33 are noteworthy; the medial u is formed by a loop in rūp-ānu-1.5; its long form in the case of r ū is indicated by turning the curve of the letter to the right or by adding two curves to the vertical, see rūpam 11.6 and 24; k shows a loop on the left in prakīrnna, 1.5 and kamala-, 1.27; j and n show a notch on the top, see panka-janma-tayā, 1. 11; the rare jh occurs in nirjjhara, 1.9; d shows a loop in some places and a tail in others1 see e.g., nibida-, 1.16, and Kaundinya, 1.38; n appears throughout in its southern form; b is flat at the bottom, its upper part which consists of a curve generally showing a notch as in prabala-, 1.20, but contrast bōdhita-, 1.25; the subscript th in sthita-, 1.5 has neither a notch, nor a ringlet; v is triangular in form. A final consonant is indicated by a horizontal line at the top, while punctuation is shown by a dot in some places and by vertical strokes in others. The sign-manual of the donor is in northern current hand characters. In it y has an archaic form, n in some cases appears without a loop, while the forms of s and h are in advance of these used in other contemporary records.

The language is Sanskrit and except for the customary benedictive and imprecatory verses, the whole record is in prose. The eulogistic part of it is written in a style of high flourish which is well-known from the works of the contemporary Sanskrit author Bāna. Kielhorn has drawn attention to the close similarities in the wording of both the eulogistic and formal parts of the present plates and the earlier Sarsavnī plates of the Katachchuri prince Buddharāja2. From this he inferred that the family of the Gurjara princes rose to independence only after the time of the Katachchuri Buddharāja. The orthography calls for few remarks. Instead of the anusvāra, the guttural nasal is used before ś in vanśa, 1.2 and nistrinśa, 1.27; the consonant following r is doubled as in sthairyya-, 1.2, nirjjhara, 1.9, etc. and the vowel ri is used for ri, in trivargga, 1.24, and yam=aśritāh, 1.21.

The plates were issued from Nāndīpurī by the illustrious Dadda II of the Early Gurjara Dynasty who had won the pañchamahāśabda and who calls himself Praśāntarāga in his sign-manual. On the seal he has the title Sāmanta (feudatory prince). The object of the inscription is to record the grant, by Dadda II, of the village Śirīshapadraka situated in the vishaya of Akrūrēśvara to forty Brāhmanas, of whom thirty-five belonging to the Rigvēda, (White) Yajurvēda and Sāmavēda had emigrated from Jambūsaras and were then residing at Śirīshapadraka itself, while the remaining five, all of whom belonged to the Atharvavēda, had emigrated from Bharukachchha and were then residing at Bhērajjikā. The purpose of the grant was, as usual, to provide for the maintenance of religious rites such as the five great sacrifices, viz., bali, charu, vaiśvadēva, agnihōtra,
_________________

¹In saudāmanīnā, 1. 21, the letter d also shows a tail like that of d , perhaps by mistake.
²Cf. ‘In his opening sentence he (i.e., the author of the present Kairā grant) compares the family of Gurjara kings with the great ocean (mahōdadhī) and in describing that ocean, he employs the words vividha, vimala, gunaratna, udbhāsita, avilanghitāvadhi, gāmbhīrya and the phrase mahāsattvatay-ātiduravagāhē which to the reader of the present (i.e., Sarsavnī) grant will surely betray their origin. Then, as in the present inscription Krishnarāja is described as from his very birth (ā janmana ēva) devoted to the service of Śiva, so the eulogist of Dadda makes that chief from his very birth (utpattita ēva) worship the sun. He, moreover, just as in the case of the present grant, continues the description of his chief in a series of relative sentences (yēna….yām cha..yasya cha, etc.) and in the clause commencing with yasya cha in line 7 and ending with Vindhyanag-ōpatyakāh in line 10 he imitates and labours to improve on the relative sentence beginning with yēna cha in line 6 and ending with diśō in line 7 of the present grant.' Kielhorn then proceeds to point out the similarities in the wording of the formal parts of the grants. ‘We find in them exactly the same list of officials to whom the order is addressed …., the same technical and other terms applied to the village granted….; with the exception of a single word, the same form of appeal to future rulers to preserve the grant, and with the omission of one verse the same benedictive and imprecatory verses, given in the same order.’ Ep. Ind., Vol. VI, pp. 296-97.