# On the Bilingual Inscriptions of the Fārūqī Sultans of Khandesh

Luther Obrock

► To cite this version:

Luther Obrock. On the Bilingual Inscriptions of the Fārūqī Sultans of Khandesh. Dániel Balogh; Annette Schmiedchen. Self-Representation and Presentation of Others in Indic Epigraphical Writing, 63, Harrassowitz Verlag, pp.207-228, 2024, Asien- und Afrikastudien der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 978-3-447-12230-6. 10.13173/9783447122306.029 . hal-04755901

HAL Id: hal-04755901

https://hal.science/hal-04755901v1

Submitted on 28 Oct 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Self-Representation
and Presentation of Others
in Indic Epigraphical Writing

Edited by
Dániel Balogh and Annette Schmiedchen

Asien- und Afrika-Studien 63
der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Harrassowitz Verlag
DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
Asien- und Afrika-Studien
der Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin

Band 63

2024

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
Self-Representation
and Presentation of Others
in Indic Epigraphical Writing

Edited by
Dániel Balogh and Annette Schmiedchen

2024

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
The present publication is a result of the project DHARMA ‘The Domestication of “Hindu” Asceticism and the Religious Making of South and Southeast Asia.’ This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no 809994). The papers in this book reflect only the respective authors’ view. The funding body is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (BY-SA) which means that the text may be used for commercial use, distribution and duplication in all media.

For details go to: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en.

Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be required from the rights holder. The obligation to research and clear permission lies solely with the party re-using the material.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet
at https://www.dnb.de/.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website
https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/

© by the contributors.

Published by Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2024

Printed on permanent/durable paper.

Printing and binding: docupoint GmbH

Printed in Germany

ISSN 0948-9789

eISSN 2750-1388

DOI: 10.13173/0948-9789

ISBN 978-3-447-12230-6

eISBN 978-3-447-39546-5

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
# Table of Contents

## Introduction

Annette Schmiedchen and Dániel Balogh with Natasja Bosma

<table><tr><td>1. Preface</td><td>ix</td></tr><tr><td>2. Editorial conventions</td><td>xvi</td></tr></table>

## Portrayal of the Forest People:
the “Other” in the Epigraphic Records of Early India

Suchandra Ghosh and Soumya Porel

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2. A few references in literary texts</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>3. Epigraphic mentions: changing positions of the forest people</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>4. Conclusion</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>10</td></tr></table>

## The Position of Tīvaradeva in the Light of
Panegyric Passages in Inscriptions of Dakṣiṇa Kosala

Natasja Bosma

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>2. Panegyric passages in the corpus of Dakṣiṇa Kosala</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>3. Statistical analysis</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>4. Discussion</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>28</td></tr></table>

## Use and Functions of the Coronation Name
During the Somavaṁśin Dynasty

Amandine Wattelier-Bricout

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>2. The corpus of the Somavaṁśin dynasty</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>3. Reassessing the identities of issuers</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>4. Use of the coronation name in grants issued by the Somavaṁśin kings</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>5. Use of the coronation names in non-royal grants</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>6. Conclusion</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>54</td></tr></table>
# Struggle Over Kannauj and Beyond:
the Pālas, the Gurjara-Pratihāras, and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas

Ryosuke Furui

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>2. Reconstruction of events</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>3. The Pālas: focus on one event</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>4. The Gurjara-Pratihāras: valour and achievement</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td>5. The Rāṣṭrakūṭas: insignia and imperial vision</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>6. Concluding remarks</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Primary Sources</td><td>70</td></tr></table>

# Claiming Sovereignty on the Edge of the Imperial Kingdom:
the Pālas of Kāmarūpa and the Candras of Vaṅga

Jae-Eun Shin

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>2. Self-representation in the changing political contexts</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>3. Presentation of others in a changing religious landscape</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>4. Conclusion</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>91</td></tr></table>

# The Portrayal of Underlings
in Eastern Cālukya Copper Plates

Dániel Balogh

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>2. Method</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>3. Discussion of results</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>4. Concluding thoughts</td><td>152</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>162</td></tr></table>

# Juxtaposed Genealogies
of the Hoysaļas and their Subordinates

Samana Gururaja

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>165</td></tr><tr><td>2. Standard expressions of loyalty in Kannada epigraphy</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>3. The Hoysaļa genealogy</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td>4. Subordinates with generational ties to the Hoysaļas</td><td>175</td></tr><tr><td>5. The Huliyar Family: Service to multiple royal families</td><td>180</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>6. Conclusion</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>185</td></tr></table>

## The Central Indian Yādava Dynasty: Epigraphic Self-Representation versus Hemādri's Account

Annette Schmiedchen

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>2. Epigraphic versus non-epigraphic praśastis</td><td>190</td></tr><tr><td>3. Eulogies of subordinate rulers under the late Yādavas</td><td>195</td></tr><tr><td>4. Post-Hemādri panegyrics</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>5. Conclusion</td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>205</td></tr></table>

## On the Bilingual Inscriptions of the Fārūqī Sultans of Khandesh

Luther Obrock

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>2. The Fārūqī Sultanate</td><td>209</td></tr><tr><td>3. Contextualising the Fārūqī Sultan's bilingual inscriptions</td><td>212</td></tr><tr><td>4. The Arabic inscriptions</td><td>216</td></tr><tr><td>5. The Sanskrit inscriptions</td><td>217</td></tr><tr><td>6. Conclusion</td><td>224</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>227</td></tr></table>

## A Tale of Two Courts: Records of Kachavāhā mahārājas in Digambara Jaina memorials

Tillo Detige

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>229</td></tr><tr><td>2. Bhaṭṭārakas: Digambara renouncers</td><td>229</td></tr><tr><td>3. Bhaṭṭārakas: Digambara lords</td><td>231</td></tr><tr><td>4. Digambara memorial inscriptions</td><td>232</td></tr><tr><td>5. Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial inscriptions attesting Kachavāhā rulers</td><td>234</td></tr><tr><td>6. Other Digambara memorials attesting rulers</td><td>253</td></tr><tr><td>7. Conclusions</td><td>255</td></tr><tr><td>8. Inscriptions</td><td>257</td></tr></table>
# Jaina Ideologies of Kingship:
## Perceptions from Early Medieval Švetāmbara Narratives

Christine Chojnacki

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>261</td></tr><tr><td>2. The Jinasena model</td><td>263</td></tr><tr><td>3. Praising the path of royal renunciation</td><td>263</td></tr><tr><td>4. The conservatism of the Švetāmbara sources</td><td>273</td></tr><tr><td>5. Conclusion</td><td>280</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>281</td></tr></table>

## Bibliography

<table><tr><td>References</td><td>283</td></tr></table>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306.V

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
On the Bilingual Inscriptions
of the Fārūqī Sultans of Khandesh

Luther Obrock<fnref n="1" />

University of California, Berkeley

# 1. Introduction

In the 1580s, the Fārūqī Sultan ʿĀdil Shāh IV (also known as ʿĀdil Khān IV) undertook a noteworthy architectural and epigraphic campaign. In 1584 and 1590, ʿĀdil Shāh dedicated two mosques, one in the hill fort of Asirgarh and one in the city of Burhanpur, both located in the south of the present-day state of Madhya Pradesh. Asirgarh and Burhanpur were two important sites for the Fārūqīs, the ruling family of the small but relatively long-lived Sultanate of Khandesh. ʿĀdil Shāh Fārūqī dedicates these mosques with bilingual Arabic-Sanskrit inscriptions placed in the miḥrāb in both Asirgarh and Burhanpur. Each inscription is rather brief: the *Asirgarh mosque inscription of ʿĀdil Shāh IV*, the shorter of the two, has two lines of Arabic over three lines of Sanskrit, while the longer *Burhanpur mosque inscription of ʿĀdil Shāh IV* consists of three lines of Arabic over six in Sanskrit. The Arabic text, written in Naskh, contains a benediction, Qurʿānic quotations, a cursory genealogy of the Fārūqī Sultans, and a date. In a mixture of verse and prose, the six lines of Sanskrit contain a praise of God, called the *ṣ)rṣṭi-kartṛ*, the ‘agent of creation,’ a lineage of ʿĀdil Shāh, and a date for the construction of the mosque. In both inscriptions, the Arabic and the Sanskrit text are parallel in structure, however the Sanskrit is far more fulsome in its praise of the Islamic God and its genealogy of ʿĀdil Shāh and much more detailed in its dating; the Sanskrit also provides the year, calculated in two reckoning systems, and exact astrological moment.

While bilingual inscriptions are not rare in South Asian epigraphical history,
these tend to use Sanskrit and a regional vernacular such as Kannada or Tamil.

<footnote n="1">1 I would like to thank Pushkar Sohoni for first drawing my attention to the Sanskrit in-
scriptions in the Burhanpur Mosque and the Asirgarh Fort, and for the many illuminating
conversations I have had with him on related topics.</footnote>
The transregional elite languages of Muslim religion, literature, and trade appear next to Sanskrit in a smaller yet significant body of bilingual inscriptions. These bilingual inscriptions combining Arabic or Persian with Sanskrit tend to be either epitaphs or commemorations of pious donations of more “secular” spaces, for instance gardens and wells. To my knowledge, these Fārūqī bilingual inscriptions are unique given their placement within the *mihrāb*, the site of religious focus in the mosque. The bilingual Sanskrit-Arabic inscriptions of ‘Ādil Shāh Fārūqī are doubly marked both by the tension between two languages of religion and power and by their architectural context in a site of Muslim worship. However, the visual and material presence of the bilingual inscriptions at such a prominent place suggests that each of these languages were doing work recognised as the legitimate sphere of each language, and that this work was legible in the juxtaposition of the two languages embodied in the two scripts.

In this brief essay, I introduce and contextualise ‘Ādil Shāh Fārūqī and his epigraphical project to examine the continuing prestige and the new elasticity of Sanskrit epigraphical culture in the Sultanates. While the history of representations of Islamic power in Sanskrit in South Asia stretches back as far as the presence of Islam in the Subcontinent, Sanskrit has tended to be portrayed as completely indifferent to Islamic religion, Islamicate cultural practices, and Muslim people in general. Yet its use in this highly visible religious context shows that various actors continued to valorise the language and that it retained powerful expressive possibilities even in Islamic spaces and sultanate<fnref n="2" /> politics. While the Fārūqīs are marginal within the history of pre-Mughal sultanate polities and while bilingual inscriptions using Islamic languages of prestige are marginal in the history of Sanskrit epigraphy, ‘Ādil Shāh Fārūqī’s mosque inscriptions can serve as instructive examples for the diverse and often surprising habitations of Sanskrit in the sultanate period.

The question thus arises: why was Sanskrit, a language deeply connected to the religious texts and practices of Hinduism, used to consecrate an Islamic place of worship? This basic question, which can help destabilise and recontextualise a priori assumptions about historical periodisation and cultural divisions, leads to further, perhaps more salient questions about this particular use of Sanskrit in a charged religious and political setting. What is the relationship

<footnote n="2">2 Here and throughout I use the adjective “sultanate” with a lower-case “s” as a shorthand for a historical moment between the stabilisation of the first Islamic polities and the rise of the Mughal imperium. In such a way the sultanate period, or the period of the plural sultanates, is taken as a time without clear centralised political or cultural power, in which different regional polities are negotiating their own power, prestige, and representation.</footnote>
between the Arabic and the Sanskrit portions of the inscription? How are the
languages presented in stone? How does the inscription relate to architecture?
How does it speak to elite political and religious practice? Finally, how does this
single (and perhaps singular) use of Sanskrit enrich and complicate both the
history of Sanskrit and the history of elite Hindu-Muslim interactions in the sul-
tanate period?

At the outset it must be stressed that the bilingual inscriptions of ‘Ādil Shāh
IV belong to a completely Islamic context. Unlike in the well-known Veraval
Sanskrit-Arabic bilingual inscription, there is no invocation of Hindu religious
or political agents.<fnref n="3" /> While the Veraval inscription seems to speak to different
political, social, and religious communities in different languages, the Fārūqī in-
scriptions are present an integrated vision of the Fārūqīs, their temporal power,
and their pious largesse. The inscriptions themselves appear on the miḥrāb, the
focus of Islamic worship in the mosque. These inscriptions do not mark sites of
encounter or a liminal space of cross-cultural exchange. The interplay between
Sanskrit and Arabic must then point to some other salient feature of language
and self-presentation in sultanate South Asia. As an experiment toward think-
ing through the tensions and possibilities of bilingual inscriptions in the sultan-
ate period, this paper reads the Sanskrit-Arabic mosque inscriptions of the
Fārūqī Sultans and asks what work does such an inscription do that an inscrip-
tion entirely in Sanskrit or Arabic could not. In the words of Sheldon Pollock
(2006, 502), language deployment represents “choices of cultural-political ac-
tors in response to differential cultural-political circumstances.” While this in-
troductory essay cannot hope to present a new “theory” of Sanskrit in the sul-
tanate world, a careful reading of the bilingual inscriptions of ‘Ādil Shāh IV pro-
vides some insight into the “life” of Sanskrit in relation to emergent languages,
religions, and polities in the complex ecology of elite culture in sultanate South
Asia.

2. The Fārūqī Sultanate

Before looking at ‘Ādil Shāh Fārūqī’s inscriptions, the history of the Fārūqīs and the Khandesh Sultanate must be rehearsed. The Fārūqīs (Table 1) are a somewhat obscure upstart group that managed to take control of Khandesh, an area on the border of present-day southern Madhya Pradesh and northern Maharashtra. Hemmed in by larger and more powerful neighbours — most notably

<footnote n="3">3 For the Veraval inscription, see Patel (2008).</footnote>
the Gujarat and the Ahmadnagar Sultanates — the Fārūqīs managed to survive, even flourish, from their sultanate's inception in the late fourteenth century until their eventual defeat and annexation by the Mughals in 1610. While much further research remains to be done on the Fārūqīs in Persian language accounts, a basic sketch of their history has been recounted in both Muḥammad Qāsim Firishta's *Tārikh* and Abū'l-Fażl's *Aʾīn-i Akbarī. The Fārūqī Sultans began as an upwardly mobile family in the service of the Delhi Sultans. Firishta (Briggs 1829, 803–4) recounts that the Fārūqīs were “among the most respectable nobles at the Delhi Court” and that they claimed high status through descent from the Khalif ‘Umar Fārūq. Firishta records their rise to prominence with an anecdotal account that upon receiving timely help during a hunt, the Delhi Sultan Fīrūz Tughluq granted the districts of Thalner and Karanda to a young Arab from this family, Malik Rājā Fārūqī. He served the Delhi rulers well on their southern frontier and managed to subdue several recalcitrant petty chieftains in the country-side nearby. After the death of Fīrūz Tughluq in 1390, Malik Rājā, through a combination of shrewd political alliances, military boldness, and seeming sheer luck, managed to carve out an independent principality. His son, Malik Naṣīr (r. 1399–1437), captured the important Asirgarh fort and founded the cities of Zainabad and Burhanpur on the east and west banks of the Tapti River, respectively. The sites of Asirgarh and Burhanpur figure strongly in the history and self-presentation of the Fārūqī Sultans.

While the importance of these two sites could be inferred solely from the congregational (*jāmiʿ*) mosques and the prominent inscriptions patronised by ʿĀdil Shāh Fārūqī, both Burhanpur and Asirgarh figure centrally in the historical accounts of Firishta and Abū'l-Fażl. These Persian sources provide a narrative context for the bilingual inscriptions. Around twenty kilometres apart, Asirgarh and Burhanpur appear as the two major nodes of Fārūqī power. The *Aʾīn-i Akbarī puts these two sites in conversation as the most notable places in Khandesh. Abū'l-Fażl writes: “Asir is the residence of the governor, it is a fortress on a lofty hill. Three other forts encompass it which for strength and loftiness are scarcely to be equalled. A large and flourishing city is at its foot. Burhanpur is a large city three kos distant from the Tapti.”<fnref n="4" /> Citing Firishta, the *Bombay Gazetteer* (Ramsay and Pollen 1880, 234) records: “The only prosperous part of the district was near Asirgad, where Āsa, a rich Ahir, had during the famine fed the people from his grain stores and built many great works, among them the walls of Asirgad fort.” The story as told is less than flattering, in which Naṣīr **Khān** Fārūqī tricks the

<footnote n="4">4 Translation from Jarrett and Sarkar (1949, 232), italics in original.</footnote>
ruler of the fort and is able to displace its former Ahir ruler under false pretences.

Burhanpur for its part became an important religious, cultural, and mercantile centre. Originally founded by Naṣīr Khān in honour of the Deccan saint Burhān al-Dīn Gharīb, a famed Ṣūfī whose own journey mirrors that of the Fārūqīs, beginning in North India and rising in power and prestige in the Deccan. According to Muḥammad Shafī‘ (2012), Burhanpur “commemorates his name, for [Burhān al-Dīn Gharīb] had given his blessings to an ancestor of its founder, Naṣīr Khān Fārūqī (r. 801–41/1399–1437), when he rested here on his way to Deōgīr and foretold the rise of the Fārūqīs and their founding of the city.” The Burhanpur congregational mosque was thus central to the public persona of the Fārūqī rulers. Consecrated in 1590 by the Fārūqī Sultan ‘Ādil Shāh, the mosque was meant to stand as a testament to the longevity and power of the Khandesh Sultanate. Such self-confidence was short-lived: ‘Ādil Shāh’s son, Bahādur Khān, surrendered to the Mughal forces under Akbar less than ten years later. After its conquest, Akbar himself had a new inscription carved under the left minaret placing the mosque — and by extension the Khandesh Sultanate — in a relationship of inclusion within and subservience to a new political dispensation.

<table><caption>Table 5. List of the Fārūqī sultans, showing attestation of names in the inscriptions of Asirgarh and Burhanpur, and the chronicles of Abū’l-Faẓl and Firishta</caption><thead><tr><td>Name</td><td>Regnal dates</td><td>Attestation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Malik Naṣīr</td><td>1399–1437</td><td>chronicles, Burhanpur</td></tr><tr><td>Mirān ‘Ādil Khān</td><td>1437–1441</td><td>chronicles</td></tr><tr><td>Mirān Mubārak</td><td>1441–1457</td><td>chronicles</td></tr><tr><td>‘Ādil Khān II</td><td>1457–1503</td><td>chronicles</td></tr><tr><td>Dāūd Khān</td><td>1503–1510</td><td>chronicles</td></tr><tr><td>Ghaznī Khān</td><td>1510</td><td>chronicles, Burhanpur</td></tr><tr><td>Qaiṣar Khān</td><td></td><td>Burhanpur</td></tr><tr><td>Hassan Khān</td><td></td><td>Burhanpur</td></tr><tr><td>‘Ādil Khān III</td><td>1510–1520</td><td>chronicles, Asirgarh, Burhanpur</td></tr><tr><td>Mirān Muḥammad</td><td>1520–1535</td><td>chronicles</td></tr><tr><td>Mubārak Khān</td><td>1535–1566</td><td>chronicles, Asirgarh, Burhanpur</td></tr><tr><td>Mirān Muḥammad II</td><td>1566–1576</td><td>chronicles</td></tr><tr><td>Rājā ‘Alī Khān, ‘Ādil</td><td>1576–1596</td><td>chronicles, Asirgarh, Burhanpur</td></tr><tr><td>Bahādur Khān</td><td>1596–1599</td><td>chronicles</td></tr></tbody></table>
These narratives of the Fārūqī sultans and the two main sites of political power are here told in brief to contextualise the setting of ‘Ādil Shāh Fārūqī’s inscriptional project. Asirgarh was an emblem of martial strength and military power, taken through the efforts of the upwardly mobile family. Burhanpur was a symbol of both the Fārūqīs’ piety and their divine ordination. The town flourished through divine favour shown by the saint and the ingenuity of the new sultanate he had chosen to honour. ‘Ādil Shāh IV’s inscriptional project is deeply imbricated in Fārūqī history and in a project of elite self-presentation. In the two bilingual inscriptions in Asirgarh and Burhanpur, ‘Ādil Shāh Fārūqī gestures toward Malik Naṣīr’s long and expansionist reign in his epigraphical and architectural project from the end of the sixteenth century. These two key sites of Malik Naṣīr’s reign become the stage for ‘Ādil Shāh IV to present his surprising inscriptions describing and inscribing their piety and locating it in time.

### 3. Contextualising the Fārūqī Sultan’s bilingual inscriptions

The two bilingual inscriptions of ‘Ādil Shāh IV are placed at sites of architectural and religious focus in congregational mosques. Such a prestigious placement makes the interplay between languages, materiality, and ideology all the more salient. Through their spatial position and material durability, the public linguistic juxtaposition of Sanskrit and Arabic demands a careful theorisation. Unlike manuscripts, which may circulate only in rarefied elite circles, inscriptions confront the viewer; similarly, even if the viewer had no knowledge of Sanskrit (or Arabic for that matter), the difference in script is clearly manifest. There was no escaping the implied conversation of these two languages played out on the walls of Islamic religious buildings. The Sanskrit text was certainly meant to be seen, and to be seen in the context of political and religious practice of the congregational mosque.<fnref n="5" /> It was placed firmly in the Islamic visual mode (as the letters are raised in the fashion of many Perso-Arabic elite inscriptions rather than incised), yet the different script highlights a disjunction between the two languages, or at least implies that these two languages operated in different spheres. The *Asirgarh and Burhanpur mosque inscriptions* stand as invitations to think through the interplay of language, political power, religion, and architecture in pre-Mughal sultanate South Asia. To put it more bluntly, they call into question simple notions of religious community bounded by language,

<footnote n="5">5 See for instance Insoll (1999, esp. chapter 2).</footnote>
architecture, and practice, and demand a language practice long defined by
Hindu and Muslim religious communities in premodern South Asia.

While scholars like Steven Vose have studied the relationship of the Jainas
and the Delhi Sultanate and Audrey Truschke has investigated the complex ties
between the Sanskrit literati and the Mughal Court, there remains much to un-
cover. In particular, a careful study of the inscriptional record can highlight the
diverse habitations of Sanskrit, still important enough to be commemorated in
stone and flexible enough to speak to diverse communities in diverse spaces.
Rather than speaking of large-scale processes of state or identity formation, this
paper attempts a beginning of a microhistory, to see how languages frozen in
time, embedded in stone, and set in architectural spaces can illuminate, and
perhaps complicate, histories of language, piety, identity, and elite self-presen-
tation in medieval South Asia.

While discussions of religion and power often begin with ideology or belief, the physical presence of Ādil Shāh IV's inscriptions within a built space invites centring materiality and public practice in their contextualisation. Materiality and architecture have recently begun to take more prominent place in reconstructing the history of both sultanate polities and Hindu-Muslim interaction in South Asia. In particular, Finbarr Flood's *Objects of Translation* (Flood 2018) and Richard Eaton and Phillip Wagoner's *Power, Memory and Architecture* (Eaton and Wagoner 2014) have fruitfully brought material culture and architecture into the discussion of the formation of Indo-Islamicate elite practice. Flood's *Objects of Translation* in particular looks at the negotiation of power and difference in material culture. In particular, his attention to "the mutual imbrications of animate subjects and inanimate objects" and his sensitivity to "the constitutive relationships between subjects, objects, and political formations" (Flood 2018, 12) is a guide to thinking through the complex web of relations that the bilingual inscriptions in context illuminate.

The use of language then can be seen as taking part in the same web of con-
stitutive relationships that the inscriptions' material forms instantiate. How
then to see the relationship between Arabic and Sanskrit in the inscriptions?
This question is especially salient given both Sanskrit and Arabic's status as
"cosmopolitan" languages. At a basic level, "cosmopolitan" means a learned lan-
guage that transcends regional particularity and historical contingency. How-
ever, a cosmopolitan language tends to be defined against an "other," a living
vernacular language. In the case of Sanskrit, Sheldon Pollock (1996) argues that
the "Sanskrit Cosmopolis" is an order of languages centred on Sanskrit in rela-
tion to South Asian vernaculars. Pollock bases his theory of the Sanskrit Cos-
mopolis on epigraphical data, particularly on how Sanskrit is articulated as a
language of power. This often comes into relief in the epigraphical record when Sanskrit is inscribed next to a regional language, a vernacular. While Pollock's theory has been deployed to explain South Asian cultural and literary history largely in terms of the cosmopolitan and vernacular divide, I would like to return to the basis of his theory, the order of languages in epigraphy. Pollock distinguishes two portions of the text, the documentary and the workly. "Our public poets did not confuse these two realms, they usually (and as time passed invariably) segregated them by a differentiation of codes, with two different kinds of truth, operative in two different kinds of worlds" (Pollock 1996, 242). These two different codes spoke to different concerns: Sanskrit transcended particularity and operated as the language of aesthetics and politics, while the vernacular spoke to worldly and temporal concerns.

Such a model holds for bilingual inscriptions in early Sanskrit epigraphical history. Sanskrit bilingualism works differently, however, when put next to the Islamicate languages of Arabic and Persian. Most obviously, while Sanskrit and the vernacular are different languages, they often use the same script. When Sanskrit comes next to Arabic, the difference in script is pronounced. While bilingual Sanskrit-Arabic and Sanskrit-Persian inscriptions are relatively well-known, reading the two portions of such an epigraph demands a careful contextualisation as to why each language was deployed in the context of the inscription. Given that Sanskrit is the language of public piety and political self-presentation in Hindu contexts and Arabic (and Persian) plays that role in Islamic contexts, the presence of both in a single inscription calls out for a reading of their interaction. While a clear-cut order of languages in the sense of cosmopolitan and vernacular is not present in the inscriptions of Ādil Shāh IV, the presence of two languages demands a theorisation for their division of labour.

The Fārūqī inscriptions present their Sanskrit text in the *praśasti* style, a way of writing in inscriptions that stretches back to the first instantiations of Sanskrit as a language of political power in the world. Elite inscriptions thus use *praśasti* to articulate kingship. Sanskrit *praśastis* thus establish the genealogy of the dynasty, highlight the dynasty's merits, and praise the current ruler. Yet in bilingual inscriptions especially, *praśastis* and their stress on succession, sovereignty, and royal qualities are informed by the interplay between the “work” done by different languages in different portions of the inscription. To return to Pollock's model, “cosmopolitan” Sanskrit depends on what he calls “the division of labour” which exists “between cosmopolitan and vernacular language use, the one expressive and the other documentary” (2006, 121). The Sanskrit is expressive: it took part in the political aesthetic which supported all claims
toward sovereignty. The vernacular languages then took “the quotidian status and function they had in everyday life” (2006, 118).

I think it is necessary to rehearse Pollock’s arguments about *praśastis* in bilingual inscriptions here because they form the basis for his use of the term “hyperglossia,” that is to say, the order of languages in South Asia with Sanskrit on top. The aesthetic resources of Sanskrit “enabled the writer to say or write things not yet sayable or at least not yet inscribable in any of the other languages of southern Asia” (2006, 136). This model theorises the relation between South and Southeast Asian vernaculars, yet when Sanskrit is placed next to Arabic, an increasingly important elite language in South Asia, what sorts of claims are being made? What “work” do these languages do, and what does their juxtaposition mean in the context of Fārūqī elite discourse? A careful reading of the Sanskrit *praśastis* in bilingual inscriptions can shed light on elite self-presentation between Indic and Islamicate modes in the sultanate period.

In her book *Precolonial India in Practice*, Cynthia Talbot argues that instead of dealing with large-scale models of civilisational processes, careful analyses of a complex of localised factors can provide a way to think through received colonial and post-colonial notions of community, religion, state, and power that colour our scholarship on medieval South Asia. This is especially salient given the highly politicised place of religion, particularly in terms of national and communal conflict, in contemporary India. Talbot (2001, 14) privileges a “micro-history so that the biases encoded in colonial forms of knowledge can be overcome; macroscopic portrayals and master-narratives impute western forms of knowledge, thus one must get as close to the ground as possible in order to minimise their influence.” She argues that microhistorical projects and thick descriptions should provide the basis of historical work in South Asia since with these types of studies, scholars avoid “creating abstract models of reality that suppress its complexity and ambiguity” (ibid.).

The two inscriptions of ʿĀdil Shāh IV present such an opportunity to think about large issues on a small scale: how can we imagine the role of the Sanskrit language of praise poetry operating in the premier space of religious power and legitimacy in the heart of the Khandesh Sultanate? This paper argues that the division of labour in the Fārūqī mosque inscriptions shows that languages were used to do different things: Arabic was used to frame donative piety in quotations from the Qurʾān and Hadith. Sanskrit was used for praise of God and kings and for locating the mosque precisely in time. This division of labour is different from that which characterised Pollock’s “cosmopolitan” bilingual inscriptions; however, it seems that elite actors within the Khandesh Sultanate still recognised the political and aesthetic power inherent in epigraphical Sanskrit and
deployed it next to the sacred language of Islam. In so doing, the *Asirgarh* and *Burhanpur* inscriptions present a new sort of language politics deploying the prestige of Arabic and Sanskrit into new and unexpected relation.

### 4. The Arabic inscriptions

To begin with the Arabic portions of ‘Ādil Shāh IV’s inscriptions, both are similar in placement, calligraphy, and content, and do similar ideological work. Both are placed in the prayer niche of a congregational mosque, both contain a number of lines in Arabic positioned over the Sanskrit inscription, and both are inscribed in relief — that is to say, unlike most Sanskrit and Indic-language inscriptions and like many Arabic and Persian inscriptions, the letters are raised with the negative space carved away. The similar style of letters is not surprising, given that the same person, one Muṣṭafā son of Nūr Muḥammad, is said to be the scribe for both inscriptions. The *Asirgarh inscription* consists of five lines, two of Arabic and three of Sanskrit. The *Burhanpur mosque inscription* contains three lines of Arabic and six of Sanskrit.

Outside of their physical placement and aesthetic appearance, the contents of both the *Asirgarh* and *Burhanpur* inscriptions are largely parallel. They both do similar work, focusing on the building of the mosque and the pious merit that accrues from such a construction. The Arabic inscription in both begins with two quotations praising the construction of mosques — one from the *al-Jinn* chapter of the *Qur‘ān* (72.18): “And verily mosques are built for God, invoke no other God but Him” and a Hadith quotation: “And the Prophet, may peace be on him, says, ‘One who builds a mosque for Allāh, even if it be as small as the nest of a Qaṭāt bird, Allāh builds for him a house in paradise.’”<fnref n="6" /> This statement is found in the fourth chapter, “Mosques and Congregations” of the *Sunan ibn Mājah*: “It was narrated from Jābir bin ‘Abdullāh that the messenger of Allāh said ‘Whoever builds a mosque for the sake of Allāh, like a sparrow’s nest or even smaller, Allāh will build him a house in Paradise” (Khattab 2007, 1:485). This quotation is a clear reference to learned discussion of the meritorious efficacy of building a mosque and the merit that will accrue to the donor of a mosque. This short portion of the Arabic text finishes with the statement that “This auspicious mosque, which is one of the bounties of the time and like a mole on a beautiful face, was built by the order of our lord and master, the Sultan.”<fnref n="7" />

<footnote n="6">6 Translation from Rahim (1961, 56–57), typo corrected.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 Translation from Rahim (1961, 57).</footnote>
When comparing the two texts, the Arabic portion of the *Asirgarh inscription* is much simpler. After discussing the meritorious nature of mosque construction, it states that it was ordered by “ʿĀdil Shāh, son of Mubārak Shāh, son of ʿĀdil Shāh al-Fārūqī, al-ʿUmarī, al-ʿAdawī” and asks that God “accept (appreciate) his pious actions through the holy Prophet and his companions and descendants!”<fnref n="8" /> This rather truncated genealogy focuses on ʿĀdil Shāh and only goes back three generations. The *Burhanpur inscription*, by contrast, goes back six generations: “ʿĀdil Shāh, son of Mubārak Shāh, son of ʿĀdil Shāh, son of Ḥasan Khān, son of Qaiṣar Khān, son of Ghaznī Khān, son of Rājā Malik al-Fārūqī, al-ʿUmarī, al-ʿAdawī [...].”<fnref n="9" /> In both Arabic inscriptions, the genealogy is rather simply stated. Each consists merely of names connected by patrilineal descent to the current ruler. Finally, both Arabic inscriptions end with a wish for God to accept the donation.

To return to what “work” the Arabic does, the focus of the Arabic is completely on the central place of the mosque in the *Qurʿān* and the meritorious nature of the donation of a mosque. Beyond a formulaic benediction, there is no praise of God or *bismillāh* in this portion of the inscription. The Arabic portion of the inscription is an argument centred on the physical presence of the mosque and its social and political implications. The inscriptions move from *Qurʿānic* quotation to Hadith quotation to locating the mosque as the “auspicious mark” of the age, to connecting it to Sultan ʿĀdil Shāh IV and his lineage. The spiritual merit gained by the construction is further located in this specific site and in the person of the sultan and his family. While the Arabic takes pride of place, being positioned above the Sanskrit in the topmost portion of the *miḥrāb*, the “worldly” portion of the text — the praise of God, the praise of kings, and the exact auspicious moment of its construction — is recorded in Sanskrit. At this point we need to turn to the Sanskrit portion of the inscription which, by its very presence, supplements, reinforces and even questions the Arabic portion, and brings us back to the question of the order of languages that ʿĀdil Shāh’s inscriptions imply.

## 5. The Sanskrit inscriptions

While it might seem that within an inscription recording the pious construction of a mosque and placed within the mosque itself, the main “religious” work of

<footnote n="8">8 Translation from *Kuraitshī* (1926, 1).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 Translation from Rahim (1961, 57).</footnote>
the inscription would be done in Arabic, the Sanskrit portions of the Fārūqī mosques draw this into question. As in the case of the Arabic inscriptions, both the *Asirgarh* and *Burhanpur* Sanskrit texts are similar; however, the later *Burhanpur inscription* is an expansion and polishing of the earlier *Asirgarh inscription*. While they are not identical, they both use similar words, phrases, and concepts and can be fruitfully read together to give a sort of large field in which to place the translation of Islamic religion and Fārūqī power into Sanskrit. While the Arabic portion locates the mosque within Qur'ānic traditions, the Sanskrit portion does three discreet things: first, it praises the Islamic God; second, it eulogises the Sultanate Dynasty; and third, it provides an exact date for the construction of the mosque based on Indic calendrical models. Here I will read each of these portions in turn.

Both the *Asirgarh* and *Burhanpur* inscriptions begin with a similar benediction. As would be expected in any Sanskrit royal inscription, the Fārūqī mosque inscriptions eulogise a deity; here however we find the Muslim God placed into Sanskrit categories. The *Asirgarh inscription* begins:

> Homage to the divine person (*puruṣa*) as the maker! Homage to you, who are the essence (*ātman*) of all qualities (*guṇa*) [yet] without qualities (*nirguṇa*), whose inherent form is [both] manifest [and] unmanifest,<fnref n="10" /> whose essence is the bliss of consciousness,<fnref n="11" /> the support (*ādhāra*) of the universe (*viśva*).<fnref n="12" />

The *Burhanpur mosque inscription* for its part uses similar language to praise the Islamic God in Sanskrit. The inscription states:

> Homage to the illustrious maker of creation! The unmanifest (*avyakta*), pervading (*vyāpaka*), permanent (*nitya*), beyond qualities (*guṇātīta*), essentially consciousness (*cidātmaka*), the cause (*kāraṇa*) of what is manifest — I praise that Lord (*iśvara*), manifest and unmanifest (*vyaktāvyakta*).<fnref n="13" />

In each inscription we have the same key words repeated: manifestation (*vyakta*), quality (*guṇa*), consciousness (*cit*), and eternity (*nitya*). While none of these concepts would be foreign in the praise of a Hindu deity, the two Sanskrit

<footnote n="10">10 Or following Ḳuraišhī, “manifest yet hidden.”</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Or following Ḳuraišhī, “inherent in *chit* (mind) and *anand* (happiness).”</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 *Asirgarh mosque inscription*, l. 1: *śrī-kartṛ-puruṣāya namaḥ| guṇātmane nirguṇāya vyaktāvyakta-svarūpiṇe| cid-ānaṁdātmane nityaṁ viśvādhārāya te namaḥ||. I would like to thank Dániel Balogh for the emendation of Ḳuraišhī’s (1926) text viśvādhārayate to viśvādhārāya te. Here and throughout, translations from Sanskrit are my own.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 *Burhanpur mosque inscription*, l. 1: *śrī-sṛṣṭi-kartre namaḥ| avyaktaṁ vyāpakaṁ nityaṁ guṇātītaṁ cid-ātmakaṁ| vyaktasya kāraṇaṁ vaṁde vyaktāvyaktaṁ tam īśvaraṁ||.</footnote>
texts marshal them in order to address specific aspects of Islamic theology in Sanskrit. The language here relies on certain notions of creation as well as the connection between a god that is beyond all qualities (*gunātīta*) yet still somehow present. The Burhanpur mosque is just one of many examples of how the Sanskrit language attempts to include Muslim conceptions of God. As Richard Salomon (1998, 307) noted in reference to his translation of line 1 of the *Burhan-pur mosque inscription*, “this invocatory verse is so phrased as to be acceptable to both Muslim and Hindu beliefs.” Such a statement seems true, yet why use such language at the religious focal point of an Islamic place of worship?

While I know of no other uses of Sanskrit language descriptions of the Islamic God within the religious space of a mosque, the Fārūqī inscriptions' Sanskrit description resonates with other examples from the first Sultanates. For instance, in the northwest of the Subcontinent, the mint of Maḥmūd of Ghaznī in Lahore struck a remarkable set of coins in 1027–1028.<fnref n="14" /> The *dirhams* (called in Sanskrit *taṅkas*) bear the Islamic profession of faith (the *kalimat*, “there is no god but God and Muḥammad is the messenger of God”) on one side in Arabic, with a “translation” on the other side written in Sanskrit in the Śāradā script. The Sanskrit translation reads *avyaktam ekaṁ muhamadah avatāraḥ nṛpatiḥ mahamūdaḥ*, “The unmanifest (*avyaktam*) is one. Muhamada is [his] *avatāra*. The king is Mahamūda.” While drawing a direct line between the Fārūqī inscriptions and the Ghaznavid coin legend is tenuous at best, it is striking to see similar language being used to make the Islamic God legible in Sanskrit.

While the languages are similar, the difference in material form and context can be instructive. In both the bilingual *dirham* and the mosque inscriptions, the essential question is about legibility: who were these different languages meant to be legible to? In the case of Maḥmūd of Ghaznī’s coin, the two sides of the coin are not direct translations, but rather separately address different elite groups across the stretch of territory where the legends of the coin would be circulated. With its connotations of mobility, exchange, and a shared language of value, Maḥmūd of Ghaznī’s bilingual *dirham* stands at the beginning of a long and experimental process of state formation and cultural negotiation underlying the stabilisation of Muslim states in South Asia. The “translation” of the praise of God in the Fārūqī inscriptions stands at the other end of this process and shows a much more complex relationship than just two complementary “sides” doing the same thing. The two halves of the inscriptions, Arabic and Sanskrit, must be read in terms of complementary legibility. Within the sacred

<footnote n="14">14 This coin has of course garnered a fair amount of scholarly attention. For an account, see A. K. Bhattacharya (1964), and Goron and Goenka (2001, xxvi–xxvii).</footnote>
and elite precincts of the mosque, the physical instantiation of the two lan-
guages portrays the ideological stabilisation of Fārūqī power. It does not matter
that neither the Sanskrit nor the Arabic would be actually understandable out-
side of small circles of elite specialists; the work that they do would be translated
by elite valorisation of their actual physical presence of the languages and their
scripts.

Following the conventions of the Sanskrit *praśasti* genre, the inscription
moves from the benediction to the *vaṁśa-prastavana*, the praise of the lineage of
the donor. Interestingly, the Sanskrit highlights the longevity of the Fārūqī lin-
eage rather than the mosque. While the Arabic-language inscriptions centre the
mosque, it is not mentioned until the very end of the Sanskrit inscriptions,
which rather focus on praise of God and of the king. Both the *Asirgarh* and the
*Burhanpur* inscriptions are similar:

Asirgarh:

As long as the moon, sun, and stars remain in the sky [and] the Gaṅgā River
on the earth, so long may that faultless lineage of the Phārukis remain upon
the earth.<fnref n="15" />

Burhanpur:

As long as the moon and sun and stars remain in the sky, so long may the
lineage of the Phārukis rejoice long on the earth!<fnref n="16" />

Similar statements are found throughout the Sanskrit epigraphical record; it is a common stock phrase in epigraphical Sanskrit and many inscriptions even have the sun and moon carved into the top of the record to artistically represent the durability of which the inscriptions speak. However, it is noteworthy that this wish for permanence is not for the pious donation, the mosque, but rather for the patron's family.

From this statement, we move on to a general lineage of the Fārūqīs. While the *Asirgarh inscription* does not go into the lineage in any poetic detail, the *Burhanpur inscription* places the dynasty within Sanskrit poetic expectations. To

<footnote n="15">15 Asirgarh mosque inscription, v. 2: *caṁdrārkka-tārā gaṅgādi tiṣṭhanti gagane bhuvi| tāvat phāruki-vaṁśo ’sau vimalo bhuvi tiṣṭhatu||*.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 Burhanpur mosque inscription, v. 2: yāvac candrārkka-tārādi-sthitiḥ syād aṁbarāṁgaṇe| tāvat phāruki-vaṁśo ’sau ciraṁ naṁdatu bhū-tale||. Accepting Salomon’s (1998) sthiti for Hira Lal’s (1907–08) kṣiti.</footnote>
begin with the *Asirgarh* version, the inscription marshals the possibilities of Sanskrit compounding to give a short encomium of ‘Ādil Shāh IV. The text states:

[The inscription<sup>17</sup>] of the Overlord of the Kingdom of Victory, the illustrious Khandesh (ṣānadeśa), Ādila Śāha (‘Ādil Shāh IV), son of Mubārakha Śāha (Mubārak Ḳhān), son of the emperor (pātaśāha), the seven times illustrious Ādila Śāha (‘Ādil Shāh III), [that ‘Ādil Shāh IV who is] the sun of splendour (*pratāpa*) that is dear to those risen (*udita*) in the illustrious family of the Phārukīs,<sup>18</sup> the full moon that bestows joy on the *cakora* birds of allies (*mitrajana*), dedicated to thinking on the God without Qualities (*nirguṇeśa*).<sup>19</sup>

Although this part of the inscription is in prose, it utilises the ornate, compound-heavy style that hearkens back to the first royal *praśastis* preserved in Sanskrit. Similarly, it deploys the term *pratāpa*, ‘heroic vigour or strength, royal splendour,’ which is key to the ideological vocabulary of kingship in Sanskrit; and likewise, the image of the king as the sun and the moon, gladdening different groups of people, is a stock trope, as is the *cakora* bird that survives by drinking moonlight. The inscription also presents the king’s sectarian affiliation in purely Sanskritic ways, saying that he is fully intent on or engaged in (*parāyaṇa*) thinking about (*cintana*) the God without Qualities (*nirguṇeśa*). Here too the Sanskrit negotiates similarity and difference; while the format is the same as would be expected for Hindu kings, the specific form of God beyond qualities is again highlighted, reinforcing the Islamic eulogy at the beginning of the inscription. It is perhaps also noteworthy that ‘Ādil Shāh is presented as ‘thinking about’ (*cintana*) rather than the more common ‘meditating upon’ (*dhyāna*) used in reference to Indic deities. Perhaps these words are merely synonyms, but it seems to me that perhaps a qualitative difference of practice is being flagged, with *cintana* being the functional equivalent of something like the Arabic *zikr*.

The genealogy in Sanskrit follows the Arabic text, referring to only two ancestors, Mubārak Shāh (r. 1535–1566) and ‘Ādil Shāh III (r. 1510–1520).<sup>20</sup> Perhaps noteworthy is the use of the Arabic *bin*, spelled in Sanskrit as *bina* to indicate

<footnote n="17">17 The word *adhipateh* is in genitive case without a clear antecedent. It could be taken with the mosque, the inscription, or perhaps the year from what follows.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 The *akṣara ṣī* in the inscription could be a mistake for *kī*. It could also, however, be an attempt to transcribe the Arabic *q*.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 *Asirgarh mosque inscription*, ll. 2–3: *śrīmat-phāruṣī-kulodita-prīta-pratāpa-dinakara-mitrajana-cakorānaṁda-kara-pūrṇacaṁdra-nirguṇeśa-cimtana-parāyaṇa-pātaśāha-śrī-śrī 5 ādilaśāha-bina-mubārakhaśāha-bina-ādilaśāha-vijayarājya-śrī-ṣānadeśādhipateḥ*.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 For a full genealogy of the Fārūqī Sultans, see Table 1 above.</footnote>
‘son of.’ While the genealogy presented in the Asirgarh mosque is cursory at best, the *Burhanpur inscription* provides a more fleshed-out poetic account. In two *upajāti* stanzas, the history of the dynasty is rehearsed:

> In this lineage, it is said, there was a Lord of the Fārūqīs, the king Malika (Malik Naṣīr) by name. He had a son of noble mind, an ornament to the family, the king Gajanī (Ghaznī **Khān**). From him [was born] the hero Kesara Khāna (Kaisar **Khān**). His son [was] the king Hasana (Hasan **Khān**). After him was the king Edala Śāha (‘Ādil Shāh III). He had a son, the lord Mubārakha (Mubārak **Khān**).<fnref n="21" />

As in the *Asirgarh inscription*, the names of kings mentioned in the genealogy match the names mentioned in the Arabic; however, here the genealogy is poticised in Sanskrit verse. Each new generation gets a quarter or half stanza giving the notion of an orderly succession.<fnref n="22" /> The genealogy culminates in a glorification of ‘Ādil Shāh:

> His son, whose lotus feet are polished by the tops of the crowns of enemy kings, whose fame (*kīrti*) is real, the lord of the earth, who bows day and night to the highest *brahman* who is beyond all qualities — the illustrious King Edala (‘Ādil Shāh IV) is victorious, the crowning jewel among other kings.<fnref n="23" />

Written in the *śārdūlavikrīḍita* metre, often used for texts of praise, the verse takes the same basic elements of the prose panegyric in the *Asirgarh inscription* and polishes them into ornate poetry. Each of the four quarters of the verse focuses on a different aspect of conventionalised royal representation in Sanskrit: overlordship, fame, piety, and benedictory praise. The example of crowns polishing the overlord’s feet is a stock image for showing sovereignty, *ādhipatya* or *aiśvarya*. As in the *Asirgarh inscription*, ‘Ādil Shāh’s *pratāpa* is specifically invoked; however, here this is paired with his great fame or renown, his *kīrti*. While the *Asirgarh inscription* spoke of the Islamic God as *nirguṇeśa*, the idea is expressed in

<footnote n="21">21 Burhanpur mosque inscription, vv. 3-4: vaṁše 'tha tasmin kila phārukīṁdro vabhūva rājā malikābhidhānaḥ| tasyābhavat sūnur udāra-cetāḥ kulāvataṁso gajanī-nareśaḥ|| tasmād abhūt kesara-khāna-vīraḥ putras tadīyo hasana-kṣitīśaḥ| tasmād abhūd edala-śāha-bhūpaḥ putro 'bhavat tasya mubārakheṁdraḥ||.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 Like the Arabic genealogy, the Sanskrit genealogy seems to skip some generations and rulers and paper over certain gaps and misremember some of the succession. This is not rare in Sanskrit epigraphy; for an example in Sanskrit during the sultanate period, see Obrock (2022, 65-66).</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 Burhanpur mosque inscription, v. 5: tat-sūnuḥ kṣitipāla-mauli-mukuṭa-vyāghṛṣṭa-pādāṁbujaḥ sat-kīrttir vilasat-pratāpa-vaśagāmitraḥ kṣitīšeśvaraḥ| yasyāhar-niśam ānatir guṇa-gaṇātīte pare brahmaṇi śrīmān edala-bhūpatir vijayate bhūpāla-cūḍāmaṇiḥ||.</footnote>
terms not of a Lord (īśa) but rather in terms of the highest brahman. Such an
equation of a god with the parama-brahman is not uncommon, however it is
noteworthy that the text further qualifies the nirguṇeśa of the Asirgarh inscription
with clear allusions to larger theological concepts and debates coming from the
Hindu tradition.

The verse concludes with an implied benediction: “the king is victorious (vijayate).” This simple conclusion, I would argue, is the point of this entire genealogical and panegyric section of text. The terms *vijaya* in the *Asirgarh inscription* and *vijayate in the Burhanpur inscription* anchor the entire genealogical/panegyric section. The culmination of the Sanskrit is a royal benediction for the king to prosper on earth. Such a desire is absent from the Arabic section, which focuses on piety and the mosque itself. Here, then, it seems that a division of labour is being worked out between two languages. While Arabic is the language of piety in the world (instantiated in the mosques themselves), Sanskrit is the language of kingship performed in the world. The positioning of the words *vijaya/vijayate* marks the performance of kingly power. On one hand, the Arabic presents the king in a documentary way as a pious donor and asks God to remember his piety. On the other, the Sanskrit is written from the perspective of ritualised praise, in which the king is the locus of genealogical pedigree, hierarchical political power, fame and renown, and religious devotion. Sanskrit poetic language here still fills the role of political self-presentation, even within the sacred precincts of a mosque.

The first two portions of the Sanskrit text speak to a translational project in
which Indic notions of divinity and kingship are marshalled to serve the Fārūqī
project. Again, this “work” is different from the work done by the Arabic sec-
tion. However, along with the Sanskrit panegyric verses, the establishment of
the date of the mosque takes up the most space in the Sanskrit inscriptions of
‘Ādil Shāh IV. In the *Burhanpur inscription*, the calculation of the exact astrolog-
ical conjunction of the mosque’s construction takes up almost one third of the
entire inscription. It does not simply state the year (as is given in the Arabic
portion) but rather the exact astrological moment at which construction began.
This speaks to a relationship between the royal court and astronomers deeply
learned in Sanskritic conventions. It also implies that ‘Ādil Shāh IV began con-
struction of the mosque at an auspicious moment in consultation with astrolo-
gers learned in Indic systems. While the year is simply stated in the Hijri era in
the Arabic, the Sanskrit gives the year in two different reckoning systems and
speaks of particular astronomical moments on a specific day in a particular
month. It is only after the precise date and time of the construction is given that
the mosque (in Sanskrit, *masīti*) itself is finally mentioned.

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306.207

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
This final line of the Sanskrit inscription echoes some of the language and concerns of the Arabic, although in a truncated form. First is the mention of the physical space of the mosque itself, which is absolutely essential to the Arabic portion. This mosque then is placed within the field of pious donation through the Sanskrit compound svadharma-pālana (for the sake of nourishing/protecting his own religion). While thus we have a return to the central concerns of the Arabic, perhaps bookending the inscription in a sort of bilingual ring structure, this seems almost an afterthought after the amount of time and energy spent on praise and astrological calculation.

To conclude this investigation of the Sanskrit section of the *Asirgarh* and *Burhanpur* inscriptions, I would like to return to the larger question: what did ‘Ādil Shāh use Sanskrit to do? Both inscriptions share a common imagination of the structure of the Sanskrit and what the Sanskrit was supposed to say. Both inscriptions repeat the same general topics, although clearly the later Burhanpur text presents the most fully formed and most polished version. In this way there seems to be an underlying assumption about what Sanskrit does, its role in the political imagination of the Fārūqī sultans. To put it succinctly, in ‘Ādil Shāh IV’s inscriptions, Sanskrit is the language of praise, lineage, and auspicious occasions. To return then to Pollock’s distinction between the “workly” and the “documentary,” Sanskrit here appears to be doing the same work that it did in “cosmopolitan” Sanskrit inscriptions. Yet, the positioning of the texts — the Arabic above the Sanskrit — speaks to a different sort of language hierarchy than in earlier Sanskrit bilingual epigraphic texts.

## 6. Conclusion

While the Arabic portion of the Fārūqī bilingual inscriptions state that “mosques are for Allāh,” the Sanskrit portion rather highlights how the mosque is for the Fārūqīs, particularly ‘Ādil Shāh IV, as it instantiates the worldly power of the Sultan, as a king and devotee. While the Arabic portion of the inscription serves to place the Fārūqīs and their mosque within an Islamic set of relations, much of the “work” of the inscription in the lived world of kingship in practice is done by the Sanskrit, especially in its utility as a language of praise and as the language of auspicious astrological calculation. In this reading then, the mosque is “for” a lot of things, and each language refers back to different traditions of elite piety and self-presentation. However, it is in the juxtaposition that ‘Ādil Shāh Fārūqī’s ideology of kingship becomes visible, as his epigraphical project puts Sanskrit and Arabic into a new and evocative relationship. Unlike the
Veraval inscription, which clearly speaks to two communities in the two lan-
guages and presupposes “insider” and “outsider” groups to religious communi-
ties, the Fārūqī inscriptions speak to one undifferentiated community of the
twin poles of authority instantiated by the mosques, God, and the king. While
such a juxtaposition of Sanskrit and Arabic in a mosque is not (to my knowledge)
found elsewhere in South Asia, it seems to me that ‘Ādil Shāh IV is just one in-
stantiation of the creative negotiations occurring between Sanskrit and other
emergent modes of expression from the increasingly Islamicate culture in India.
These negotiations continue throughout the sultanate period, and the extant
fragments of Sanskrit that exist speak to the ongoing way different agents re-
sorted to, adopted, and adapted Sanskritic literary forms for their own purposes
outside of centralised courtly spaces.

When the two portions of the bilingual inscriptions are read together, a pic-
ture of the division of labour between Sanskrit and Arabic begins to take shape.
Arabic is the language of piety and religion which sets the donation of the
mosque within canonical Islamic ideas of piety. In the Sanskrit portion of the
inscriptions, political representation takes centre stage and ‘Ādil Shāh IV uses
it as the language of the public performance of power. While the meritorious
nature of his pious gift is adumbrated in the Arabic, its location within the world
is done in Sanskrit.

The sultanate period has been long overlooked as a site of creative engage-
ment with the aesthetic and political utility of Sanskrit, yet as the bilingual
dirham of Maḥmūd of Ghaznī shows, Sanskrit was an integral part of royal self-
presentation for many Muslim polities from their very inception. The Asirgarh
and Burhanpur mosque inscriptions stand at the end of this period of creative ne-
gotiation of new forms of political expression. In the coming decades, the
Mughal Empire consolidated its political and aesthetic supremacy, and the de-
centralised and experimental dynamic of various sultanate polities was eclipsed
as they assimilated into the Mughal Imperium. In fact, the ascendancy of
Mughal power is itself inscribed on the very same sites so central to ‘Ādil Shāh
IV’s project. On January 26, 1601 CE (22nd of Rajab, 1009 Hijri), the Mughal forces
took the Fort of Asirgarh. Faced with the overwhelming might of the Mughal
Army, the last Sultan, ‘Ādil Shāh IV’s son Bahādur Khān, submitted to Emperor
Akbar’s forces. While similar events happened at numerous sultanates large and
small throughout South Asia, the Fārūqī Sultans’ defeat is noteworthy for its
material commemoration in a set of public inscriptions in Persian. Emperor
Akbar commanded the Mughal courtier, calligrapher, and poet Mīr Muḥammad
Ma‘ṣūm of Bhakkar, also known by his penname of Nāmī, to record the Mughal
victory in a set of Persian verses to be inscribed at the entrance of the Asirgarh
Fort as well as on the congregational mosque in Burhanpur. On a pillar inside
the mosque within Asirgarh fort, Nāmī writes:

The world-subduing and world bestowing Sovereign, Akbar Bādshāh, con-
quered Asīr(garh) by dint of his youthful good fortune. When Nāmī sought
the date of its conquest, wisdom said [the chronogram] “He took the hill of
Asīr.”<fnref n="24" />

Similarly, a rock outside of the main gate of the fortress also bears an inscription completed by Nāmī, commemorating the event. Another similar verse, also executed by Nāmī, is found on the base of the southern minaret of the Jamī‘ī mosque built by ʿĀdil Shāh IV Fārūqī in Burhanpur. Nāmī again writes:

> His majesty the emperor with the audience hall of the sky, the shadow of God,
> made Burhānpur the camping ground of the victorious standards, and
> Bahādur Khān, having presented himself, was granted the favour of paying
> obeisance (and) the emperor pardoned his as well as his dependants' lives.
> And the fort of Asīr was taken.<fnref n="25" />

These two inscriptions, set at two of the most important sites of the Fārūqī Sultans' power, mark the end of their two-hundred-year rule in Khandesh<fnref n="26" /> at their two most important sites of power. The annexation into the Mughal imperium is marked by a new epigraphical language of power, Persian, literally inscribed over ʿĀdil Shāh IV's creative marshalling of Sanskrit and Arabic.

In the end then, ʿĀdil Shāh IV’s project was a failure; however, attention to
his epigraphical texts in material and historical contexts provides perhaps a
small window into the dynamic cultural history of Sanskrit beyond cosmopolit-
anism. As one final note, in his edition of the Sanskrit inscription Hira Lal
(1907-08, 306) writes the following note: “I have seen some Sanskrit manu-
scripts in Persian character in the possession of some Maulvīs of Burhânpûr,
preserved as heirlooms from their ancestors, who apparently studied them un-
der State encouragement. Unfortunately, most of these valuable records have
been destroyed by the fires of 1897 and 1906 which caused damage to the extent
of about 57 lakhs besides loss of life.” While in all likelihood the Sanskrit texts of
the maulvīs are all irrevocably lost (and their families are most likely long gone
from Burhanpur), such a comment reminds the modern scholar to look for
traces of the vibrant and creative multilingualism of the sultanates, and to read

<footnote n="24">24 Translation from Kuraitī (1926, 4).</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 Translation from Rahim (1962, 73).</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 The dating is slightly problematic. The dating of the *Burhanpur mosque inscription* seems to be more accurate. See the discussion by Rahim (1961, 72-74).</footnote>
inscriptional texts like those of ʿĀdil Shāh IV as hints toward the dynamic poli-
tics of language and self-presentation in sultanate South Asia. To this end, the
bilingual inscriptions of the Fārūqīs of Khandesh remain as a testament to the
creative deployment of Sanskrit in Islamicate or perhaps even Islamic contexts.

Primary sources

See page xvi about references to primary sources.

ʿAin-i Akbari by Abū’l-Fażl-i ʿĀllamī: translation, Jarrett and Sarkar (1949).

Asirgarh mosque inscription of ʿĀdil Shāh IV: Sanskrit and Arabic parts, Kuraiṣhī (1926, 1–9).

Burhanpur mosque inscription of ʿĀdil Shāh IV: Sanskrit part, Salomon (1998, 305–7), also edited by Hira Lal (1907–08, 306–10); Arabic part, Rahim (1961, 49–58).

Sunan Ibn Mājah by Ibn Mājah: translation, Khattab (2007).

Tārikh-i Firishta by Muḥammad Qāsim Firishta: Briggs (1829).<fnref n="27" />

<footnote n="27">27 Briggs’s spellings have been updated and standardised.</footnote>
DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306.207

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306.261

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
# Bibliography

## References

Acharya, Subrata Kumar. 2013. ‘Ruchida Plates of Mahābhavagupta, Year 8’. *Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India* 39: 26–42.

—. 2014. *Copper-Plate Inscriptions of Odisha: A Descriptive Catalogue (circa Fourth Century to Sixteenth Century CE)*. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.

Agresti, Alan. 2018. *Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences*. Fifth edition. Harlow: Pearson.

Ahmad, S. Maqbul. 1989. *Arabic Classical Accounts of India and China*. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study in association with Rddhi-India, Calcutta.

Ali, Daud. 2000. ‘Royal Eulogy as World History: Rethinking Copper-Plate Inscriptions in Cōļa India’. In *Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia*, by Ronald B. Inden, Jonathan S. Walters, and Daud Ali, 165–229. New York: Oxford University Press.

—. 2006. *Courtly Culture and Political Life in Early Medieval India*. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.

Ali, Daud, and Diana Shuheng Zhang. 2022. ‘A New Inscription of the Pāṇḍuvaṃśins of Dakṣiṇa Kosala: Philadelphia Museum of Art Copper-Plates of Nannarāja I, Year 7’. *Indo-Iranian Journal* 65: 305–39.

Altekar, Anant Sadashiv. 1960. ‘The Yādavas of Seunadeśa’. In *The Early History of the Deccan*, edited by Ghulam Yazdani, 513–74. London: Oxford University Press.

Bakker, Hans T. 2014. *The World of the Skandapurāṇa: Northern India in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries*. Supplement to Groningen Oriental Studies. Leiden: Brill.

Balogh, Dániel. 2023a. ‘A háborús borzalmak gyönyöre? Saiva és buddhista retorika kelet-dekkáni földadományozó táblákon (Delighting in the Horrors of Warfare? Śaiva and Buddhist Rhetoric in Copperplate Land Grants of the Eastern Deccan)’. *Keletkutatás* 2022: 21–49.

—. 2023b. ‘The Portrayal of Underlings in Eastern Cālukya Copper Plates: Textual Analysis Data’. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7900312.

—. *forthcoming* a. ‘Can We Discern a Śaiva and a Buddhist Rhetoric in Royal Eulogies?’ In *Śaiva-Buddhist Encounters in Early Medieval East India*, edited by Lucas den Boer and Florinda De Simini. Studies on the History of Śaivism. Naples: UniorPress.

—. *forthcoming* b. ‘Textual Analysis Methodology and Royal Representation in Copperplate Grants’. In *Bhūtārthakathane ... Sarasvatī: Reading Poetry as a History*
*Book*, edited by Marco Franceschini, Chiara Livio, and Lidia Wojtczak. Studies on the History of Śaivism. Naples: UniorPress.

—. *in preparation*. 'Textual Analysis of Sanskrit Copperplate Grants: A Preliminary Implementation'.

Balogh, Dániel, and Arlo Griffiths. 2020. *DHARMA Transliteration Guide*. Project documentation. Paris; Berlin: Centre d'Études de l'Inde et de l'Asie du Sud; École française d'Extrême-Orient; Humboldt-Universität. https://hal.science/halshs-02272407v3.

Banerji, Rakhal Das. 1911-12. 'Parikud Plates of Madhyamarajadeva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 11: 281-87.

—. 1915. *The Pālas of Bengal*. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 5.3. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.

—. 1917-18. 'The Bangarh Grant of Mahi-Pala I: The 9th Year'. *Epigraphia Indica* 14: 324-30.

—. 1919-20. 'The Amgachhi Grant of Vigraha-Pala III: The 12th Year'. *Epigraphia Indica* 15: 293-301.

Barnett, Lionel David. 1915-16. 'Thana Plates of the Time of the Yadava King Ramacandra: Saka 1194'. *Epigraphia Indica* 13: 198-206.

Basak, Radhagovinda. 1913-14a. 'Belava Copper-Plate of Bhojavarmadeva: The Fifth Year'. *Epigraphia Indica* 12: 37-43.

—. 1913-14b. 'Rampal Copper-Plate Grant of Srichandradeva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 12: 136-42.

—. 1949-50. 'Madanapur Plate of Srichandra, Year 44'. *Epigraphia Indica* 28: 51-58.

—. 1959. *Aśokan Inscriptions*. Calcutta: Progressive Publishers.

Belli Bose, Melia. 2015. *Royal Umbrellas of Stone: Memory, Politics, and Public Identity in Rajput Funerary Art*. Leiden: Brill.

Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna. 1913-14. 'Chatsu Inscription of Baladitya'. *Epigraphia Indica* 12: 10-17.

—. 1925-26. 'Sanjan Plates of Amoghavarsha I: Saka-Samvat 793'. *Epigraphia Indica* 18: 235-57.

Bhandarkar, Ramakrishna Gopal. 1927 (Reprint 1983). *Early History of the Dekkan and Miscellaneous Historical Essays*. Government Oriental Series 3. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Bhattacharya, A. K. 1964. 'Bilingual Coins of Mahmud of Ghazni'. *Journal of the Numismatic Society of India* 26: 53-56.

Bhattacharya, Gourishwar, and M. Sivayya. 1961-62. 'Mallar Plates of Jayaraja, Year 9'. *Epigraphia Indica* 34: 28-31.

Bhattacharya, Suresh Chandra. 1983. 'Mainamati Copper Plate of Vīradharadeva'. *Journal of Ancient Indian History* 14: 17-28.

—. 2005-06. 'The Jagjibanpur Plate of Mahendrapāla Comprehensively Re-Edited'. *Journal of Ancient Indian History* 23: 61-125.
Bhattasali, Nalinikanta. 1923-24. 'Kedarpur Copper Plate of Sri-Chandra-Deva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 17: 188-92.

Bhoir, Ramakant R. 2002. 'Latest Inscription of Ramchandra Yadava'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 63: 247-50.

Bhojak, Amritlal Mohanlal. 1961. *Cauppannamahāpurisacariam by Ācārya Śri Śīlāṅka*. Prakrit Text Society Series 3. Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society.

Bodard, Gabriel. 2010. 'EpiDoc: Epigraphic Documents in XML for Publication and Interchange'. In *Latin on Stone: Epigraphic Research and Electronic Archives*, edited by Francisca Feraudi-Gruénais, 101-18. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Bosma, Natasja. 2013. 'The Bāleśvara Temple Complex of Śivagupta: Epigraphical Evidence for the Śaiva Siddhānta and Soma Siddhānta Traditions in Dakṣiṇa Kosala'. *Indo-Iranian Journal* 56 (3-4): 245-61.

—. 2018. *Dakṣiṇa Kosala: A Rich Centre of Early Śaivism*. Groningen: Barkhuis.

Briggs, John. 1829 (Reprint 1977). *History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the Year A.D. 1612*. Lahore: Sang-e Meel Publications.

Bruhn, Klaus. 1954. *Śīlāṅka's Cauppanṇamahāpurisacariya: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Jaina-Universalgeschichte*. Hamburg: De Gruyter.

Bryant, Antony. 2017. *Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Butterworth, Alan, and V. Venugopaul Chetty. 1905. *A Collection of the Inscriptions on Copper-Plates and Stones in the Nellore District: Part II*. Madras: Superintendent, Government Press.

Chakravarti, Ranabir. 2014. 'From the Araṇyacaras to the Antyavasāyins: Inequality, Marginalization and the Lower Social Order in the Arthaśāstra'. In *Papers from the Aligarh Historians' Society*, edited by Irfan Habib, 180-85. Aligarh: Indian History Congress.

—. 2022. 'Trade and the Making of State Society in Early India (600-1300CE)'. In *The Routledge Handbook of the State in Premodern India*, edited by Hermann Kulke and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu, 127-55. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.

Chanda, Rama Prasad. 1911. 'Dinājpur Pillar Inscription'. *Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal New Series* 7: 615-19.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. *Constructing Grounded Theory*. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. 1994. *The Making of Early Medieval India*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

—. 1998. *Representing the Other? Sanskrit Sources and the Muslims (Eighth to Fourteenth Century)*. New Delhi.

—. 2017. 'The State's Perception of the "Forest" and the "Forest" as State in Early India'. In *The Concept of Bharatavarsha and Other Essays*, 56-74. Ranikhet: Permanent Black.

Chhabra, Bahadur Chand. 1935-36. 'Sonepur Plates of Maha-bhavagupta(II)-Janamejaya; the year 17'. *Epigraphia Indica* 23: 248-55.
—. 1962. *Diplomatic of Sanskrit Copper-Plate Grants*. Delhi: National Archives of India.

Chojnacki, Christine. 2008. *Kuvalayamālā: Roman jaina de 779 composé par Uddyotanasūri*. 2 vols. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica.

—. 2011. 'Shifting Communities in Early Jain Prabandha Literature: Sectarian Attitudes and Emergent Identities'. *Studies in History* 27: 197–219.

Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. 1988. *Assam-Bengal Relations: From the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A. D*. Delhi: Spectrum Publications.

Chowdhury, Abdul Momin. 1967. *Dynastic History of Bengal (c. 750-1200 A. D.)*. Dacca: The Asiatic Society of Pakistan.

—. 1978. 'Vaṅga-Kāmarūpa Relationship during the Rule of the Candras'. *Bangladesh Historical Studies* 3: 33–39.

—. 2018. 'Pāla Realm: Making of a Regional Political Power'. In *History of Bangladesh: Early Bengal in Regional Perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE)*, edited by Abdul Momin Chowdhury and Ranabir Chakravarti, 1: 691–832. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.

Coelho, William. 1950. *The Hoysaṅla Vaṁśa*. Bombay: Indian Historical Research Institute, St. Xavier's College.

Colebrooke, Henry Thomas. 1891. *Kosha or Dictionary of the Sanskrit Language by Umura Singha with an English Interpretation and Annotations*. Calcutta: Nundo Mohon Banerjee.

Cort, John E. 1998. 'Who Is a King? Jain Narratives of Kingship in Medieval Western India'. In *Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Culture in Indian History*, edited by John E. Cort, 85–110. Albany: State University of New York Press.

—. 2002. 'A Tale of Two Cities: On the Origins of Digambara Sectarianism in North India'. In *Multiple Histories: Culture and Society in the Study of Rajasthan*, edited by Lawrence A. Babb, Varsha Joshi, and Michael W. Meister, 39–83. Jaipur & New Delhi: Rawat Publications.

Cowell, Edward Byles. 1897. *The Jātaka, or, Stories of the Buddha's Former Births*. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cowell, Edward Byles, and Frederick William Thomas. 1897. *The Harṣa-Carita of Bāṇa*. London: Royal Asiatic Society.

Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1960. 'Chandras of East Bengal: In the Light of the Newly-Discovered Inscriptions'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 23: 36–44.

—. 1966. 'Mainamati Plates of the Chandras'. *Pakistan Archaeology* 3: 22–55.

Davidson, Ronald M. 2002. *Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement*. New York: Columbia University Press.

De Simini, Florinda. 2016. *Of Gods and Books: Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India. Of Gods and Books*. Studies in Manuscript Cultures 8. Berlin: De Gruyter.
De, Sushil Kumar. 1940. *The Mahābhārata. Volume 6: The Udyogaparvan, Being the Fifth Book of the Mahābhārata, the Great Epic of India*. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Deleu, Josef. 1981. 'A Note on the Jain Prabandhas'. In *Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus: Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf*, edited by Klaus Bruhn and Albrecht Wezler, 61–73. Alt- und Neuindische Studien 23. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. 1957. *The Hoysalas: A Medieval Indian Royal Family*. Madras: Oxford University Press.

Desai, P. B. 1949–50. 'Methi Inscription of Yadava Krishna; Saka 1176'. *Epigraphia Indica* 28: 312–20.

Detige, Tillo. 2018. 'Satpātrāya Samarpittam: Manuscript Copies and the Early Modern Digambara Saṅgha'. In *The Gift of Knowledge: Patterns of Patronage in Jainism*, edited by Christine Chojnacki and Basile Leclère, 274–370. Bengaluru: Sapna Book House.

—. 2019a. "'Guṇa Kahūṃ Śrī Guru': Bhaṭṭāraka Gītas and the Early Modern Digambara Jaina Saṅgha'. In *Early Modern India: Literature and Images, Texts and Languages*, edited by Maya Burger and Nadia Cattoni, 271–85. Heidelberg; Berlin: CrossAsia-eBooks.

—. 2019b. "'Tataḥ Śrī-Gurus Tasmai Sūrimantram Dadyāt', "Then the Venerable Guru Ought to Give Him the Sūrimantra": Early Modern Digambara Jaina Bhaṭṭāraka Consecrations'. *Religions* 10, 369: 1–31.

—. 2020. 'Digambara Renouncers in Western and Central India, c. 1100–1800'. In *Encyclopedia of Jainism*, edited by John E. Cort, Paul Dundas, and Kristi L. Wiley, 182–215. Leiden: Brill.

—. 2023. 'Digambara Memorials from Western India Pre-20th Century CE'. In *Pure Soul: The Jaina Spiritual Traditions*, edited by Renate Söhnen-Thieme, Peter Flügel, and Heleen De Jonckheere, 70–79. London: Centre of Jaina Studies.

—. 2024. 'The Ritual Veneration of Living Digambara Jaina Renouncers'. In *Contemplative Studies and Jainism: Meditation, Prayer, and Veneration*, edited by Purushottama Bilimoria, Cogen Bohanec, and Rita D. Sherma, 107–20. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.

—. forthcoming. *Eternal Salutations: Monuments of Digambara Jaina Ascetic Lineages from Western India*. Doctoral dissertation, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Center for Religious Studies.

Devadhar, C. R. 1985. *Raghuvamśa of Kālidāsa*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Dikshit, Kashinath. 1931–32. 'Navagrama Grant of the Maharaja Hastin (G.E. [1]98)'. *Epigraphia Indica* 21: 124–26.

Dikshit, Moreshwar G. 1947. महाराष्ट्रांतील कांहीं प्राचीन ताम्रपट व शिलालेख (इ० स० पांचव्या ते बाराव्या शतकांतले) (Selected Inscriptions from Maharashtra [5th to 12th Century A.D.]). Pune.

Dirks, Nicholas B. 1976. 'Political Authority and Structural Change in Early South Indian History'. *Indian Economic and Social History Review* 13: 125–57.
Dundas, Paul. 1991. 'The Digambara Jain Warrior'. In *The Assembly of Listeners: Jains in Society*, edited by Michael Carrithers and Caroline Humphrey, 169–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eaton, Richard Maxwell, and Phillip B. Wagoner. 2014. *Power, Memory, Architecture: Contested Sites on India's Deccan Plateau, 1300–1600*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Estienne-Monod, Perrine. 2008. *Les inscriptions sanskrites des Calukya orientaux: caractéristiques et fonctions d'une littérature épigraphique*. PhD thesis, Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I. http://www.theses.fr/2008AIX10038.

Ferguson, Yale, and Richard W. Mansbach. 1996. *Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change*. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Ferrier, Cédric, and Judit Törzsök. 2008. 'Meditating on the King's Feet? Some Remarks on the Expression Pādānudhyāta'. *Indo-Iranian Journal* 51: 93–113.

Fleet, John Faithfull. 1878. 'Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions: No. XLIX'. *Indian Antiquary* 7: 303–8.

—. 1882. *The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Muhammadan Conquests of A.D. 1318*. Bombay: Government Central Press.

—. 1883a. 'Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions: No. CXXVII'. *Indian Antiquary* 12: 156–65.

—. 1883b. 'Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions: No. CXXVIII'. *Indian Antiquary* 12: 215–20.

—. 1885. 'Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions: No. CLIX. Paithan Plates of Ramacandra. - Saka 1193'. *Indian Antiquary* 14: 314–19.

—. 1888. *Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and Their Successors*. First edition. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 3. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.

—. 1891a. 'Sanskrit and Old-Kanarese Inscriptions: No. 193. Chipurupalle Copper-Plate Grant of Vishnuvardhana I. — Dated in His Eighteenth Year'. *Indian Antiquary* 20: 15–18.

—. 1891b. 'The Chronology of the Eastern Chalukya Kings'. *Indian Antiquary* 20: 1–15, 93–104, 266–85.

—. 1894–95. 'Records of the Somavamsi Kings of Katak'. *Epigraphia Indica* 3: 323–59.

—. 1900–01. 'Nilgund Inscription of the Time of Amoghavarsha I.; A.D. 866'. *Epigraphia Indica* 6: 98–108.

Fleming, Benjamin. 2010. 'New Copperplate Grant of Śrīcandra (No. 8) from Bangladesh'. *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies* 73: 223–44.

Flood, Finbarr Barry. 2018. *Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval 'Hindu-Muslim' Encounter*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Francis, Emmanuel. 2018. 'Indian Copper-Plate Grants: Inscriptions or Documents?' In *Manuscripts and Archives*, edited by Alessandro Bausi, Christian Brockmann, Michael Friedrich, and Sabine Kienitz, 387–418. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Furui, Ryosuke. 2008. 'A New Copper Plate Inscription of Gopala II'. *South Asian Studies* 24: 67–75.

—. 2009. 'Re-Reading Two Copper Plate Inscriptions of Gopāla II, Year 4'. In *Prajñādhara: Essays on Asian Art History, Epigraphy and Culture in Honour of Gouriswar Bhattacharya*, edited by Gerd J.R. Mevissen and Arundhati Banerji, 319–30. New Delhi: Kaveri Books.

—. 2010. 'Biyala Copperplate Inscription of Mahīpāla I'. *Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology* New Series 1: 99–106.

—. 2011a. 'Rangpur Copper Plate Inscription of Mahīpāla I, Year 5'. *Journal of Ancient Indian History* 27: 232–45.

—. 2011b. 'Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapala, Year 26: Tentative Reading and Study'. *South Asian Studies* 27: 145–56.

—. 2013. 'Merchant Groups in Early Medieval Bengal: With Special Reference to the Rajbhita Stone Inscription of the Time of Mahīpāla I, Year 33'. *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies* 76: 391–412.

—. 2016. 'Bharat Kala Bhavan Copper Plate Inscription of Rājyapāla, Year 2: Re-Edition and Reinterpretation'. *Puravritta (Journal of the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Government of West Bengal)* 1: 41–56.

—. 2017. 'Subordinate Rulers under the Pālas: Their Diverse Origins and Shifting Power Relation with the King'. *The Indian Economic & Social History Review* 54: 339–59.

—. 2020. *Land and Society in Early South Asia: Eastern India 400-1250*. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.

Gaur, Albertine. 1975. *Indian Charters on Copper Plates in the Department of Oriental Manuscripts and Printed Books*. London: British Museum Publications.

Ghosh, Suchandra. 2010–11. 'Kamarupa and Early Bengal: Understanding Their Political Relationship'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 71: 110–18.

Gius, Evelyn, Jan Christoph Meister, Malte Meister, Marco Petris, Christian Bruck, Janina Jacke, Mareike Schumacher, Dominik Gerstorfer, Marie Flüh, and Jan Horstmann. 2022. 'CATMA'. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6419805.

Glasenapp, Helmuth von. 1942. *The Doctrine of Karman in Jain Philosophy*. Translated by G. Barry Gifford. Bombay: Bai Vijibai Jivanlal Panalal Charity Fund.

—. 1984. *Der Jainismus: Eine indische Erlösungsreligion*. Kultur und Weltanschauung 1. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

Gopal, K. K. 1964. 'The Assembly of Samantas in Early Mediaeval India'. *Journal of Indian History* 42: 241–50.

Gopal, Lallanji. 1963. 'Sāmanta - Its Varying Significance in Ancient India'. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* New Series 95: 21–37.

Goron, Stan, and J. P. Goenka. 2001. *The Coins of the Indian Sultanates: Covering the Area of Present-Day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh*. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Guest, Greg, Kathleen M. MacQueen, and Emily E. Namey. 2012. *Applied Thematic Analysis*. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Gupta, P. L. 1961-62. 'Nesarika Grant of Govinda III, Saka 727'. *Epigraphia Indica* 34: 123-34.

Gupte, Y. R. 1926. 'Yādavas Mentioned in the Religious Books of the Mahānubhāvas'. *Journal of Indian History* 5: 198-203.

Hahn, Michael. 2007. *Kapphiṇābhyudaya, or, King Kapphiṇa's Triumph: A Ninth Century Kashmiri Buddhist Poem*. Ryukoku University Studies in Buddhist Culture 18. Kyoto: Ryukoku University.

———. 2013. *Śivasvāmin's Kapphiṇābhyudaya*. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

———. 2019. 'War Council in Śivasvāmin's Kapphiṇābhyudaya: The Justification for an Expansionist War as Given in Śivasvāmin's Kapphiṇābhyudaya'. In *War and Peace in Indian Literature and Culture*, edited by Danuta Stasik and Anna Trynkowska, 115-25. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa.

Hatcher, Brian A. 2020. *Hinduism before Reform*. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.

Haug, Martin. 1863. *The Aitareya Brahmanam of the Rigveda, Containing the Earliest Speculations of the Brahmans on the Meaning of the Sacrificial Prayers, and on the Origin, Performance and Sense of the Rites of the Vedic Religion. Volume II. Translation, with Notes*. Bombay; London: Government Central Book Depôt; Trübner & Co.

Hawkes, Jason, and Riza Abbas. 2016. 'Copperplates in Context: A Preliminary Investigation of the Study and Archaeological Settings of Land Grant Inscriptions'. *Pratnatattva* 22: 41-71.

Heitzman, James. 1997. *Gifts of Power: Lordship in an Early Indian State*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Henige, David P. 1975. 'Some Phantom Dynasties of Early and Medieval India: Epigraphic Evidence and the Abhorrence of a Vacuum'. *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies* 38: 525-49.

Hira Lal. 1905-06. 'Betul Plates of Samkshobha, the Gupta Year 199'. *Epigraphia Indica* 8: 284-90.

———. 1907-08. 'Burhanpur Sanskrit Inscription of Adil Shah. Samvat 1646'. *Epigraphia Indica* 9: 306-10.

Hoernle, Augustus Frederic Rudolf. 1891. 'Two Pattavalis of the Sarasvati Gachchha of the Digambara Jains'. *Indian Antiquary* 20: 341-61.

———. 1892. 'Three Further Pattavalis of the Digambaras'. *Indian Antiquary* 21: 57-84.

Horstmann, Jan. 2020. 'Undogmatic Literary Annotation with CATMA'. In *Annotations in Scholarly Editions and Research: Functions, Differentiation, Systematization*, edited by Julia Nantke and Frederik Schlupkothen, 157-76. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Horstmann, Monika. 2009. *Der Zusammenhalt der Welt: religiöse Herrschaftslegitimation und Religionspolitik Maharaja Savai Jaisinghs (1700-1743)*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 2013. *Jaipur 1778: The Making of a King*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hultzsch, Eugen Julius Theodor. 1894-95. 'Chicacole Plates of Gunarnava's son Devendravarman'. *Epigraphia Indica* 3: 130-34.
—. 1895. *South-Indian Inscriptions: Tamil Inscriptions of Rajaraja, Rajendra-Chola, and Others in the Rajarajesvara Temple at Tanjavur*. Volume II, Part III: Supplement to the First and Second Volumes. South Indian Inscriptions, 2.3. Madras: Government Press.

—. 1905-06. 'Nagpur Museum plates of Mahabhavagupta I. Janamejaya'. *Epigraphia Indica* 8: 138-42.

Hunter, William Wilson, and Nabin K. Sahu. 1956. *A History of Orissa*. First edition. Vol. 2. Calcutta: Susil Gupta.

Inden, Ronald B. 1990 (2000 second impression). *Imagining India*. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

—. 2000a. 'Introduction: From Philological to Dialogical Texts'. In *Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia*, by Ronald B. Inden, Jonathan S. Walters, and Daud Ali, 3–28. New York: Oxford University Press.

—. 2000b. 'Imperial Purāṇas: Kashmir as Vaiṣṇava Center of the World'. In *Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practice in South India*, edited by Daud Ali, Ronald B. Inden, and Jonathan S. Walters, 29–98. New York: Oxford University Press.

Inden, Ronald, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali, eds. 2000. *Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Insoll, Timothy. 1999. *The Archaeology of Islam*. Oxford: Blackwell.

Islam, Shariful. 2018. 'Emerging Political Entities in Southeast Bengal (Vaṅga-Samataṭa-Harikela)'. In *History of Bangladesh: Early Bengal in Regional Perspectives* (up to c. 1200 CE), edited by Abdul Momin Chowdhury and Ranabir Chakravarti, 1: 551–690. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.

ISO. 2001. *International Standard ISO 15919: Information and Documentation, Transliteration of Devanagari and Related Indic Scripts into Latin Characters = Information et documentation, translittération du Devanagari et des écritures indiennes liées en caractères latins*. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

Jain, Ramesh Chandra. 1963. *Samaraichchakaha of Acharya Haribhadra Suri: Prakrit Text with Sanskrit Chhaya and Hindi Translation*. 2 vols. New Delhi: Bharatiya Jnanpith.

Jaina, Balabhadra. 1978. भारत के दिगम्बर जैन तीर्थ. चतुर्थ भागः राजस्थान-गुजरात-महाराष्ट्र (Bhārata ke Digambara Jaina tīrtha. Caturtha bhāga: Rājasthāna-Gujarāta-Mahārāṣṭra). Bambaī: Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Tīrthakṣetra Kameṭī.

Jarrett, H. S., and Jadu-nath Sarkar. 1949 (Reprint 1993). 'Ain-i-Ākbari of Abul Fazl-i-Āllami. Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.

Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. 1958. भट्टारक सम्प्रदाय (Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya). Solāpura: Jaina Saṁskṛiti Saṁrakṣaka Saṅgha.

Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara, and Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla. 1975. चीर शासन के प्रभावक आचार्य (Vīra śāsana ke prabhāvaka ācārya). Nayī Dillī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha.

Joshi, B. R. 1946. 'A Study of the Dynastic Name Hoysala'. *Indian Historical Quarterly* 22: 172–79.

Joshi, P. M. 1966. 'Ala-Ud-Din Khalji's First Campaign against Devagiri'. In *Studies in Indian Culture*. Dr. Ghulam Yazdani Commemoration Volume, edited by Haroon Khan
Sherwani, 203–11. Hyderabad: Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Oriental Research Institute.

Kane, Pandurang Vaman. 1930. *History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law)*. Volume 1. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Kangle, R. P. 1960. *The Kautīlīya Arthaśāstra. Part I, A Critical Edition with Glossary*. University of Bombay Studies, Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali 1. Bombay: University of Bombay.

Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. 1989. *खण्डेलवाल जैन समाज का वृहद् इतिहास (Khandelavāla Jaina samāja kā vrhad itihāsa)*. Jayapura: Jaina Itihāsa Prakāśana Samsthāna.

Khattab, Nasiruddin. 2007. *English Translation of Sunan Ibn Mājah*. Edited by Huda Khattab. Vol. 1. Riyadh: Darussalam.

Kielhorn, Lorenz Franz. 1892a. 'Inscriptions from Khajuraho'. *Epigraphia Indica* 1: 121–53.

—. 1892b. 'Patna Inscription of the Time of the Yadava Simghana and His Feudatories Soideva and Hemadideva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 1: 338–46.

—. 1892c. 'The Dinājpur Copper-Plate Inscription of Mahīpāla'. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 61: 77–87.

—. 1894. 'Badal Pillar Inscription of the Time of Narayanapala'. *Epigraphia Indica* 2: 160–67.

—. 1896–97a. 'Khalimpur Plate of Dharmapaladeva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 4: 243–54.

—. 1896–97b. 'Kudopali Plates of the Time of Mahabhavagupta II'. *Epigraphia Indica* 4: 254–59.

—. 1902–03. 'A List of Inscriptions of Southern India from about A.D. 500'. *Epigraphia Indica* 7, Appendix.

Koparkar, D. G. 1957–58. 'Kalegaon Plates of Yadava Mahadeva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 32: 31–44.

Kraska-Miller, Marie. 2014. *Nonparametric Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences*. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. *Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology*. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krishna Rao, Bhavaraju Venkata. 1934–35. 'Revised Chronology of the Eastern Chalukya Kings'. *Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society* 9: 1–32.

—. 1973. *History of the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi. 610–1210 A.D.*. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Akademi.

Kulke, Hermann. 1996. 'Periodization of Pre-Modern Historical Processes in India and Europe. Some Reflections'. *The Indian Historical Review* 19: 21–36.

—. 1997. 'Some Observations on the Political Functions of Copper-Plate Grants in Early Medieval India'. In *Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien / The State, the Law, and Administration in Classical India*, edited by Bernhard Kölver, 237–44. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
Kumar, Ashish. 2015. *Kings, Merchants and Forest Societies in the Mālava-Dāhala Region* (c. AD 400–800). Doctoral Thesis, New Delhi: Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Kuraişhī, Muḥammad Ḥamid. 1926. ‘Some Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit Inscriptions from Asirgarh in Nimār District, Central Provinces’. *Epigraphia Indica*, *Arabic and Persian Supplement* 1925–26: 1–9.

Lakshmana Rao, Komarraju Venkata. 1927–28. ‘The Addanki Stone Inscription of Pandaranga’. *Epigraphia Indica* 19: 271–75.

Lal, Kishori Saran. 1967. *History of the Khaljis*. A.D. 1290–1320. London: Asia Publishing House.

Laskar, Ganga Mohan. 1905. ‘Four New Copper-Plate Charters of the Somavámśi Kings of Kośala (and Kaṭaka?)’. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 1: 1–26.

Leclère, Basile. 2013. *Le théâtre de l’Inde médiévale entre tradition et innovation: le Moharājaparājaya de Yaśaḥpāla*. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica.

Lienhard, Siegfried. 1984. *A History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit*. History of Indian Literature 3.1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Mahalingam, T. V. 1992. ‘The Sēuṇas of Devagiri’. In *A Comprehensive History of India*, edited by Ram Sharan Sharma and Krishna Mohan Shrimali, 4.1: 137–55. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House.

Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra. 1925–26a. ‘Jodhpur Inscription of Pratihara Bauka; V. S. 894’. *Epigraphia Indica* 18: 87–99.

———. 1925–26b. ‘The Gwalior Prasasti of the Gurjara-Pratihara King Bhoja’. *Epigraphia Indica* 18: 99–114.

Malamoud, Charles. 1998. *Cooking the World: Ritual and Thought in Ancient India*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Mazumdar, B. C. 1911–12. ‘Three Copper-Plate Records of Sonpur’. *Epigraphia Indica* 11: 93–104.

Mette, Adelheid. 2010. *Die Erlösungslehre der Jaina. Legenden, Parabeln, Erzählungen*. Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen.

Mills, E. M. 1993. ‘A Copper Plate from the Reign of Śrīcandra (Bangladesh National Museum Accession Number 77.1478)’. *South Asian Studies* 9: 77–86.

Mirashi, Vasudev Vishnu. 1939–40. ‘Purshottampuri Plates of Ramachandra: Saka 1232’. *Epigraphia Indica* 25: 199–225.

———. 1959. ‘An Odd Copper-Plate Grant of the Yādava King Rāmacandra’. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 22: 196–200.

Misra, Pramatha Nath, and Ramesh Chandra Majumdar. 1951. ‘The Jājilpārā Grant of Gopāla II, Year 6’. *Journal of the Asiatic Society (Letters)* 17: 137–44.

Moore, David S., George P. McCabe, and Bruce A. Craig. 2021. *Introduction to the Practice of Statistics*. Tenth edition. New York: Macmillan.

Nayak, P. K. 2012. ‘A Vigraha Grant Discovered from Baragaon’. In *Pratnakirti: Recent Studies in Indian Epigraphy History Archaeology and Art. Essays in Honour of Prof. Shrinivas Ritti*, edited by Shrinivas V. Padigar and V. Shivananda, 1: 72–78. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan.
Nilakanta Sastri, K. A., and N. Venkataramanayya. 1960. 'The Eastern Chālukyas'. In *The Early History of the Deccan*, edited by Ghulam Yazdani, 471–503. London: Oxford University Press.

Novetzke, Christian Lee. 2020. 'The Political Field of Bhakti at the Emergence of Marathi Literature in Premodern India'. In *Regional Communities of Devotion in South Asia: Insiders, Outsiders, and Interlopers*, edited by Gil Ben-Herut, Jon Keune, and Anne E. Monius, 122–36. Routledge South Asian Religion Series 13. London: Routledge.

Nyāyatīrtha, Anūpacanda. 1985. 'आमेर गद्दी के भट्टारक महेन्द्रकीर्ति का दिल्ली में पट्टाभिषेक (Āmera gaddī ke Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti kā Dillī meṁ paṭṭābhiṣeka)'. Vīra-vāṇī 37 (15): 421–23.

—, ed. 1997. *दिगम्बर जैन मन्दिर परिचय जिला जयपुर (ग्रामीण अञ्चल)* (Digambara Jaina mandira paricaya jilā jayapura [grāmīṇa añcala]). Jayapura: Digambara Jaina Mandira Mahāsaṅgha.

Nyāyatīrtha, Bhaṁvaralāla. 1986. 'जयपुर में भट्टारक परंपरा के संस्थान नहीं रहे (Jayapura meṁ bhaṭṭāraka paraṁparā ke saṁsthāna nahīṁ rahe)'. Vīra-vāṇī 38 (9): 357–58.

Obrock, Luther. 2022. 'Uddhara's World: Geographies of Piety and Trade in Sultanate South Asia'. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* 32: 59–81.

Olivelle, Patrick. 2013. *King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra. A New Annotated Translation*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pal, Sayantani. 2008. 'Matsyanyaya of Khalimpur Inscription: Revisiting Its Geo-Historical Significance'. *Journal of the Asiatic Society* 50: 21–36.

Panda, S. C., D. Chopdar, and P. K. Nayak. 2002. 'Ruchida Copperplate Grant of Mahābhavaguptarājadeva'. *Journal of New Aspects of History of Orissa* 11: 72–76.

Panigrahi, Krishna Chandra. 1981. *History of Orissa: Hindu Period*. Cuttack: Kitab Mahal.

Parabrahma Sastry, P. V. 1978. *The Kakatiyas of Warangal*. Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Parasher-Sen, Aloka. 1991. *Mlecchas in Early India: A Study in Attitudes towards Outsiders Upto AD 600*. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

—. 2006. 'Naming and Social Exclusion: The Outcaste and the Outsider'. In *Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE*, edited by Patrick Olivelle, 425–55. South Asia Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

—. 2019. 'Habitation, Woods and the Wild: Differentiating Forest in Early India'. In *Questioning Paradigms Constructing Histories: A Festschrift for Romila Thapar*, edited by Kumkum Roy and Naina Dayal, 124–41. New Delhi: Aleph.

Patel, Alka. 2008. 'Transcending Religion: Socio-Linguistic Evidence from the Somanātha-Verāval Inscription'. In *Ancient India in Its Wider World*, edited by Grant Parker and Carla Sinopoli, 143–64. Ann Arbor: Centers for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan.

Pathak, Kashinath Babu. 1885. 'A Copper-Plate Grant of the Yadava King Krishna'. *Indian Antiquary* 14: 68–75.
Peterson, Indira Viswanathan. 2003. *Design and Rhetoric in a Sanskrit Court Epic: The Kirātarjunīya of Bhāravi*. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Pollock, Sheldon. 1996. 'The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300-1300: Transculturation, Vernacularization, and the Question of Ideology'. In *Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language*, edited by Jan E. M. Houben, 197-247. Brill's Indological Library 13. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2006. *The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India*. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.

Rahim, S. A. 1961. 'Inscriptions of the Faruqi Kings from Burhanpur'. *Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement* 1961: 49-58.

———. 1962. 'Some More Inscriptions from Khandesh'. *Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement* 1962: 72-76.

Rajaguru, Satyanarayan. 1966. *Inscriptions of Orissa, Vol. 4*. Bhubaneswar: Sri Sarada Press.

Rajaguru, Satyanarayana. 2011. 'Appendix 1: A New Copperplate of the Time of Mahasivagupta Yayati-II'. In *Inscriptions of Orissa: With Special Reference to Subarnapur*, edited by Pabitra Mohana Nayak, 98-105. New Delhi: Readworthy Publications.

Ramesh, K. V., and S. P. Tewari. 1975-76. 'An Inscription of Pratihāra Vatsarāja, Śaka 717'. *Epigraphia Indica* 41: 49-57.

Ramsay, W., and John Pollen. 1880. *Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency Volume XII: Khandesh*. Edited by James M. Campbell. Bombay: Government Central Press.

Rao, Ajay K. 2016. 'From Fear to Hostility: Responses to the Conquests of Madurai'. *South Asian Studies* 32: 68-79.

Ravishankar, T. S., ed. 2011. *Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy for 1997-98*. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

Rice, Benjamin Lewis. 1894. *Inscriptions in the Mysore District (Part I)*. Epigraphia Carnatica 3. Bangalore: Mysore Government Press.

———. 1898. *Inscriptions in the Mysore District (Part II)*. Epigraphia Carnatica 4. Bangalore: Mysore Government Press.

———. 1901. *Inscriptions in the Kadur District*. Epigraphia Carnatica 6. Bangalore: Mysore Government Press.

———. 1902a. *Inscriptions in the Hassan District*. Epigraphia Carnatica, 5.1. Mangalore: Basel Mission Press.

———. 1902b. *Inscriptions in the Shimoga District (Part I)*. Epigraphia Carnatica 7. Bangalore: Mysore Government Central Press.

———. 1904a. *Inscriptions in the Shimoga District (Part II)*. Epigraphia Carnatica 8. Bangalore: Mysore Government Central Press.

———. 1904b. *Inscriptions in the Tumkur District*. Epigraphia Carnatica 12. Bangalore: Mysore Government Central Press.

———. 1914. *Coorg Inscriptions (Revised Edition)*. Epigraphia Carnatica 1. Madras: Superintendent, Government Press.
Rice, Benjamin Lewis, and R. Narasimhachar. 1923. *Inscriptions at Sravana Belgola (Revised Edition)*. Epigraphia Carnatica 2. Bangalore: Mysore Government Central Press.

Ridding, Caroline Mary. 1896. *The Kādambarī of Bāṇa*. London: Royal Asiatic Society.

Sahu, B. P. 1985. 'Ancient Orissa, the Dynamics of Internal Transformation of the Tribal Society'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 54: 148–60.

Sahu, J. K. 1979. 'Identification of Mahabhavagupta of Mahakosala Historical Society Plates'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 40: 1117–21.

Saldaña, Johnny. 2016. *The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers*. Third edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Salomon, Richard. 1998. *Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sanderson, Alexis. 2009. 'The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period'. In *Genesis and Development of Tantrism*, edited by Shingo Einoo, 41–349. Special Series, 23. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.

Sankaranarayanan, S. 1977. *The Vishṇukuṇḍis and Their Times: An Epigraphical Study*. Delhi: Agam Prakashan.

Sanyal, Rajat. 2014. 'The Pala-Sena and Others'. In *Political History and Administration (c. AD 750–1300)*, edited by Dilip K. Chakrabarti and Makkhan Lal, 165–213. History of Ancient India 5. New Delhi: Vivekananda International Foundation and Aryan Books International.

Schmiedchen, Annette. 2014. *Herrschemgenealogie und religiöses Patronat: die Inschriftenkultur der Rāṣṭrakūṭas, Śilāhāras und Yādavas* (8. bis 13. Jahrhundert). Gonda Indological Studies 17. Leiden: Brill.

Schreier, Margrit. 2012. *Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shafi‘, Muhammad. 2012. ‘Burhān Al-Dīn Gharīb’. In *Encyclopaedia of Islam*. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islamSIM_1544.

Sharma, Mukunda Madhava. 1978. *Inscriptions of Ancient Assam*. Gauhati: Gauhati University.

Sharma, Ram Sharan. 1961. 'Land Grants to Vassals and Officials in Northern India (c. A. D. 1000-1200)'. *Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient* 4: 70–105.

—. 2001. *Early Medieval Indian Society. A Study in Feudalisation*. Kolkata: Orient Longman.

Shastri, Ajay Mitra. 1972. *Yādava Inscriptions from Ambe Jogai*. Vishveshvaranand Indological Series 56. Hoshiarpur.

—. 1995a. *Inscriptions of the Śarabhapurīyas, Pāṇḍuvaṁsins, and Somavaṁsins, Part I: Introduction*. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research; Motilal Banarsidass.
—. 1995b. *Inscriptions of the Śarabhapurīyas, Pāṇḍuvamśins and Somavamśins, Part II: Inscriptions*. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research; Motilal Bandarsidass.

Shastri, Ajay Mitra, and Snigdha Tripathy. 2011-12. 'Charters of Mahabhavagupta I Janamejaya from Gopalpur, Year 1, 10 and 12'. *Epigraphia Indica* 43: 91-137.

Shastri, Biswanarayan. 1991-92. *The Kālikāpurāṇa: Text, Introduction & English Translation with Shloka Index*. Delhi: Nag Publishers.

Shin, Jae-Eun. 2022a. 'From Bhauma to Vārāha: The Shifting Lineage Identity of the Kāmarūpa Rulers in Northeast India, 7th-12th Century'. *Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient* 65: 583-617.

—. 2022b. 'The Moon with Two Stories: Reconsidering the “Buddhist” Candras in East India, 10th-11th Centuries'. *India Humanities Focus* 11: 1-8.

Sircar, Dines Chandra. 1949-50. 'Two Inscriptions from Kelga'. *Epigraphia Indica* 28: 321-28.

—. 1951-52. 'Two Pala Plates from Belwa'. *Epigraphia Indica* 29: 1-13.

—. 1955. 'The Deccan'. In *The Age of Imperial Kanauj*, edited by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, 132-49. The History and Culture of the Indian People 4. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

—. 1955-56. 'Note on Kurud Plates of Narendra, Year 24'. *Epigraphia Indica* 31: 267-68.

—. 1959-60a. 'Bhaturiya Inscription of Rajyapala'. *Epigraphia Indica* 33: 150-54.

—. 1959-60b. 'Dhulla Plate of Sricandra'. *Epigraphia Indica* 33: 134-40.

—. 1961-62a. 'Note on Nesarika Grant of Govinda III, Saka 727'. *Epigraphia Indica* 34: 135-40.

—. 1961-62b. 'Pandiapathar Plates of Bhimasena, Year 89'. *Epigraphia Indica* 34: 233-38.

—. 1963-64. 'Three Pala Inscriptions'. *Epigraphia Indica* 35: 225-38.

—. 1965. *Indian Epigraphy*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

—. 1966. *Indian Epigraphical Glossary*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

—. 1967-68. 'Paschimbhag Plate of Srichandra, Year 5'. *Epigraphia Indica* 37: 289-304.

—. 1969-70. 'Mainamati Plates of the Candra Kings (3 Plates)'. *Epigraphia Indica* 38: 197-214.

—. 1973. *Epigraphic Discoveries In East Pakistan*. Calcutta: Sanskrit College.

—. 1973-74. 'Three Copper-Plate Grants from Assam'. *Epigraphia India* 40: 55-76.

—. 1983. *Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization. Volume II: From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century A.D*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

—. 1985. *The Kānyakubja-Gauḍa Struggle, from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century A.D.* Dr. Bimanbehari Majumdar Memorial Lecture. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.

—. 2007. 'Political History'. In *Comprehensive History of Assam*, edited by H. K. Barpujari, 1: 140-71. Guwahati: Publication Board Assam.
Sitapati, G. V. 1926. 'The Korni Copper Plate Grants of Anantavarma Chodaganga: Second Set, Saka Samvat 1034'. *Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society* 1: 106–24.

Slaje, Walter. 2019. 'Buddhism and Islam in Kashmir as Represented by Rājataranginī Authors'. In *Encountering Buddhism and Islam in Premodern Central and South Asia*, edited by Blain Auer and Ingo Strauch, 128–60. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Smith, David. 1985. *Ratnākara's Haravijaya: An Introduction to the Sanskrit Court Epic*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, Walter. 1991. 'Images of Divine Kings from the Mukteśvara Temple, Bhubaneswar'. *Artibus Asiae* 51: 90–106.

Sontheimer, Günther-Dietz. 1994. 'The Vana and the Kṣetra: Tribal Background of Some Famous Cults'. In *Religion and Society in Eastern India: Eschmann Memorial Lectures*, edited by Hermann Kulke and Gaya Charan Tripathi, 117–64. Delhi: Manohar.

Spencer, George W. 1984. 'Heirs Apparent: Fiction and Function in Chola Mythical Genealogies'. *The Indian Economic & Social History Review* 21: 415–32.

Srinivasan, P. R. 1967–68. 'Mahulpara Plates of Mahasivagupta-Dharmaratha, Year 11'. *Epigraphia Indica* 37: 225–32.

—. 1969–70. 'A Grant of Mahasivagupta I-Yayati, Year 4'. *Epigraphia Indica* 38: 186–91.

Stein, Burton. 1977. 'The Segmentary State in South Indian History'. In *Realm and Region in Traditional India*, edited by Richard Gabriel Fox, 3–51. Monograph and Occasional Papers Series 14. Durham: Duke University.

—. 1980. *Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

—. 1998. 'All the King's Mana: Perspectives on Kingship in Medieval India'. In *Kingship and Authority in South Asia*, edited by J. F. Richards, 133–88. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Strauch, Ingo. 2002. *Die Lekhapaddhati-Lekhapañcāśikā: Briefe und Urkunden im mittelalterlichen Gujarat*. Monographien zur indischen Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie 16. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

Strong, John S. 2017. 'The Legends of King Aśoka and the Many Faces of Buddhist Kingship'. Unpublished paper; references are given to the pages of the manuscript. *Lee & Won Foundation Lecture Series on New Horizons in the Study of Buddhism and Buddhist Art, No. 2*. Seoul: National Museum of Korea.

Sūri, P. 1961. *Mahāmātya-Vastupāla-kīrtikīrtana-svarūpa-kāvyadvaya*. Singhi Jaina Series 32. Bombay.

Suryanarayana, Kolluru. 1987. *Feudatories under Eastern Chālukyas (History and Culture of Andhras)*. Delhi: Gian.

Tagare, Ganesh Vasudeo. 1950 (Reprint 1999). *The Bhāgavata-Purāṇa*. Edited by J. L. Shastri. 5 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Talbot, Cynthia. 1995. 'Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim Identities in Pre-Colonial India'. *Comparative Studies in Society and History* 37: 692–722.

———. 2001. *Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra*. Oxford.

Tawney, Charles Henry. 1880. *The Ocean of Story, Being C. H. Tawney's Translation of Somadeva's Kathā Sarit Sāgara (or Ocean of Streams of Story)*. Volume 1. Edited by Norman Mosley Penzer. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.

———. 1884. *The Ocean of Story, Being C. H. Tawney's Translation of Somadeva's Kathā Sarit Sāgara (or Ocean of Streams of Story)*. Volume 2. Edited by Norman Mosley Penzer. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.

Taylor, Sarah Pierce. 2020. 'Jains, Kings, and Kingship in Medieval India'. In *Brill's Encyclopedia of Jainism*, edited by John E. Cort, Paul Dundas, Knut A. Jacobsen, and Kristi L. Wiley, 486–98. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2021. 'The King Never Dies: Royal Renunciation and the Fiction of Jain Sovereignty'. *Religions* 12: 1–19.

Thapar, Romila. 2001. 'Perceiving the Forest: Early India'. *Studies in History* 17: 1–16.

Tieken, Herman. 2023. *The Aśoka Inscriptions: Analysing a Corpus*. Delhi: Primus Books.

Tripathy, Snigdha. 2000. *Inscriptions of Orissa, Vol. 2: Inscriptions of the Bhauma-Karas*. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.

———. 2010. *Descriptive Topographical Catalogue of Orissan Inscriptions*. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors.

Upadhye, Adinath Neminath. 1959. *Uddyotana-Sūri's Kuvalayamālā (a Unique Campū in Prākrit) Critically Edited from Rare Mss. Material for the First Time with Various Readings, Notes Etc. and Ratnaprabhā-Sūri's Kuvalayamālā-Kathā (a Stylistic Digest of the above in Sanskrit) Critically Edited with Various Readings Etc. Part I: Kuvalayamālā, Prākrit-Text & Various Readings*. First edition. Singhi Jain Series 45. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

Varmā, Gopīcandra. 1998. *दिगम्बर जैन अतिशय क्षेत्र ध्री महावीरजी का संक्षिप्त इतिहास एवं कारय-विवरण (Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Śrī Mahāvīrajī kā saṁkṣipta itihāsa evam kārya-vivaraṇa)*. Jayapura: Rāmā Prakāśana.

Vasu, N. N. 1900. 'Copper-Plate Inscription of Madanapala'. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 69: 66–73.

Verma, Onkar Prasad. 1970. *The Yadavas and Their Times*. Nagpur: Vidarbha Samshodhan Mandal.

Vijayaśīlacandrasūri. 2000. *Siri Bhuyaṇasumdarīkahā*. 2 vols. Prakrit Text Series 39. Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society.

Vose, Steven M. 2022. 'Jain Memory of the Tughluq Sultans: Alternative Sources for the Historiography of Sultanate India'. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* 32: 115–39.

Wathen, W. H. 1839. 'Mr. Wathen's Translation of Ancient Inscriptions'. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* 5: 173–188.
Wattelier-Bricout, Amandine. 2023. ‘Scribes’, Engravers’ and Ministers’ Lineages, an Indication (among Others) of the Royal Donor’s Identity’. Paper presented in Pondicherry, January 30. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04032553.

Yadava, B. N. S. 1966. 'Secular Landgrants of the Post-Gupta Period and Some Aspects of the Growth of Feudal Complex in North India'. In *Land System and Feudalism in Ancient India*, edited by Ram Sharan Sharma, 72-94. Calcutta.