Ujjain Grant of Vākpatirājadēva (Trivedi, no. 5). Metadata.
Creators: name: Trivedi, H. V.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 1978
Subjects: IN060006
उज्जैन
OB060006
Vākapatirāja

description: Ujjain Grant of Vākpatirājadēva (Trivedi, no. 5). Metadata.
description: UJJAIN GRANT OF VĀKPATIRĀJADĒVA 

[Vikrama] Year l 036

The copper-plates which bear the subjoined inscription are stated to have been discovered  some time  before the middle of the nineteenth  century  A.C.,  in  a  ruin  in  the vicinity  of UJJAIN, the Ujjayinī of  a  hoary  antiquity, and found their way to the Central  India  Agency, which  then existed at Indore,  in  Madhya Pradesh. R.N.C. Hamilton. who was  then  the  Agent     to the Governor-General and in charge of  the   Agency, sent a facsimile of the record to the Asiatic Society, Calcutta; and from the same, the late Dr. Rajendralal Mitra, the librarian of the Society, edited the inscription in its Journal, Volume XIX (for 1850), pp. 475, publishing the text in Nāgarī (pp. 477-78),  with its translation in English (pp. 478-80) and a preliminary note (pp. 475- 77). In the meanwhile the plates sailed off and were again noticed in the India Office, London, where they are now preserved. In 1885 the document was systematically edited by Kielhorn, with text in Nāgarī and a fresh translation, in the Indian Antiquary, Volume XIV (1885), pp. 159 ff.,  from a photo-lithograph, supplied to him by J.F. Fleet, one of the editors of the Journal. But  neither Mitra's nor Kielhorn's article is illustrated, and, being unable to procure the impressions of the inscription, I edit it here from the latter's reading of the text.

The set consists of two copper plates, each measuring about 32·38 cms. broad by 24·13 cms. high. The edges of them are fashioned thicker into rims to protect the writing, which is well preserved. The bottom of the first and the top of the second plate has two ring-holes for holding the plates together, but from Kielhorn's writing it appears that only one of the rings could then be obtained. He describes it  to be a "plain copper-ring, about  3/8” ("9 cm.) thick and  21" (5.71 cms.) in diameter; it has been cut before the grant came under notice for  photolithograph." As  he has also stated, the total weight of the plates and the ring is 6 lbs. 10 oz., i.e., about 3 kilograms.

The grant is written in the Nāgarī script current in the tenth century A.C. The language is Sanskrit; and, excepting two benedictory and five imprecatory stanzas at the beginning and the end, respectively, the record is in prose. Unlike the preceding inscription, it shows the tendency to use parasavarṇa instead of the sign for anusvāra, see, e.g., śaśāṅka and chaňchat, both in 1. 1, śrīkaṇṭha in l. 2, samva(ba)ddha in 1. 9 and sāmānyō'yandharmma- in 1. 25, illustrating the use  of all class-nasals. This tendency, however, has gone so far as to put a class nasal wrongly in some instances, e.g., in śrēyānsi, l. 2, samvat, 1. 28, and samviditaṁ and  samvatsarē, both in 1. 11. On the other  hand, anusvāra  wrongly  occurs at  the  end of  a  hemistich  in phalaṁ in v. 3 (1. 21) and at the  end  of a sentence in 1. 19. To note a scribal error, the word shaṭṭṛiṁśat in 1. ll is written as shaṭtruṁśat. In place of the sign for visarga we have that of upadhmanīya in two instances in 11. 5 and 27; the sign for avagraha is employed once correctly in 1. 16, to denote the merging of initial a into the preceding ē, but wrongly in vuddhvā-‘smat, 1. 19. The spelling Ujjayanyāṁ in 1. 14 is interesting, as in the preceding record. Orthographically, there is nothing worth noting, except that (1) b is always denoted by the sign for v, and (2) the consonant following r is not unoften doubled.

The inscription is one of the Mahārājā, the illustrious Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja and Paramēśvara Vākpatirājadēvā, alias Amōghavarsha, who belonged to the Paramāra ruling house of Mālwā; and its preliminary portion consisting of the maṅgala-ślōkas and the mention of the genealogy is literally identical with that of the Dharampurī grant that immediately precedes and was written only five years earlier, in V.S 1031. Thus the genealogical portion teaches us nothing new. The only noteworthy difference, however, is in regard to the object of the grant and the occasion of making it. The object of the present charter is to record, in terms which call for no remarks, the donation of the village of Sēmbalapura, included in the bhukti of the Mahā- sādhanika Mahāïka and connected with the Tiṇisapadra-dvādaśaka.

The gift was made by Vākpatirāja from his stay at Bhagavatpura, at the request of Āsinī, the wife of the MahāsādhanikaMahāïka, on, as expressed in words only, the full-moon day of Kārttika, on the occasion of a lunar eclipse in the (Vikrama) Saṁvat 1036, the corresponding Christian day being the 26th October, 980,[1] and it was to provide for the worship of Bhaṭṭārikā, the goddess Bhaṭṭēśvarī at Ujjayanī, the modern Ujjain, for the repairs of the temple.

While editing the grant, Kielhorn has suggested that “as Bhaṭṭārikā is an epithet of Durgā, Bhaṭṭēśvarī seems to have been one of the local names of that deity”. [2] In view of these general remarks made by Kielhorn, the deity referred to here appears to be none else than the goddess now known in the locality by the name of Hara-siddhi, whose image is enshrined there in a temple which, though not very old, occupies almost the same high regard as Mahākāla, not only among the public of Ujjain but also in the surrounding region. For exposition of the phrase referring to the repairs to the temple, my note appended to the corresponding portion of the text may be seen.

The expression Mahāsādhanika is used in Mērutuṅga’s Prabandhachintāmaṇi in the sense of a military governor [3]; and Sādhanika occurs in the Māndhātā inscription of V.S. 1331 of Jayavarman II; and according to Dr. D.C. Sircar, it is the same as Prakrit Sāhaniā, meaning the commander of an army.[4] But from the historical point of view it may be noted here that VākpatiMuñja made the grant from his stay at Bhagavatpura; and, if our identification of this place with the village of Bhagōr which is on the Chambal, as shown below, be correct, incidentally it may be pointed out that this river of ancient fame is still regarded very sacred throughout Mālwā; [5] and the custom of taking bath in its holy waters before making gifts to Brāhmaṇas on the full-moon day of Kārttika, as also happens to be the date of the present inscription, is taken to be most meritorious. The proposed identification of Bhagavatpura with the modern Bhagōr and of the other place in the region adjoining to it which is the north-western part of Mālwā, may also go to suggest, of course tentatively but as it appears likely, that on this occasion Vākpati-Muñja appears to have encamped at this place in course of his struggle with some of his enemies in the west and north-west, viz., the Chaulukya Mūlarāja I, the Guhila Śaktikumāra and the Nāḍōl Chāhamāna Balirāja, all of whom are known to have been defeated by him. [6] Line 29 states that the charter of the donation was actually issued on the ninth of the dark half of Chaitra of the same year, i.e. V.S. 1036, which is about four months later when the king was camping at Guṇapura after he had achieved a great victory (mahāvijaya-skandhāvarē), which may obviously be taken to have been won against any of these enemies.

The portion of the inscription dealing with the grant and the purpose for which it was made is followed by five of the customary imprecatory verses (11. 20-28), which are the same as in the Dharampurī record. Line 28 gives another date, as seen just above. And, after mentioning the name of the dāpaka to be Rudrāditya, [7]and with the sign-manual of Vākpatirāja in 1. 30, the record comes to a close.

Kielhorn expressed his inability to identify any of the geographical names appearing in the inscription;[8] but considering that they were all in the same region, I propose to make the following suggestions. Bhagavatpura, as seen above, appears to be the modern town of Bhagōr (23o 53’ N. Lat. and 75o 25’ E. Long.), situated on the Chambal, about 16 kms. south-southwest of Sītāmaū, [9] the chief town of a former State of the same name and now that of a parganā in the Mandsaur District of Madhya Pradesh. About 6 kms. to the north of Bhagōr is a big village of the name of Titrōd (24o 2’ N. Lat.; 75o 29’ E. Long.), which too, like Bhagōr, is an old place and a tehsīl of the former State named above, and is known to have been an important place in the later days under the Mughals, [10] and may have borne some importance in the earlier days also so as to form the headquarters of a region at the time of the Paramāras, as we learn from the charter under study. This place suggests its identification with Tiṇisapadra. About 8 kms. north-east of Titrōd is a village of the name of Sēmliā, which, in view of its situation in the same region, appears to be the Sēmbalapura of the inscription. A consideration of all these places in the same locality shows that in the early days of their power the Paramāras had extended their sway at least up to the southern part of the modern Sītāmaū parganā of the Mandsaur District of Madhya Pradesh and lying to the west of the Chambal. Guṇapura, where the grant is stated to have been written, cannot be definitely identified for want of details; a somewhat similar name goes to suggest that it may possibly have been the modern village of Guṇāvad (75o 30’ E. Long.; 22o 39’ N. Lat.), situated about 12 kms. north by east from Dhār, which is now the chief town of a District of the same name in Madhya Pradesh.

 

[1] This equivalent was given by Kielhorn when he edited the inscription in the Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 159. But while publishing his article, the editor of the journal remarked in f.n. 2 of the same page that “this date, when there was an eclipse of the moon, answers by the northern reckoning, to the full moon of Kārttika of V.S. 1037, which is one year later than the date recorded in the grant, and for full moon of Kārttika of V.S. 1036 the equivalent date would be Tuesday, the 6th November, 979 A.C., when also there was an eclipse of the moon.” Kielhorn later on accepted this statement in the Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 23 No. 4.

[2] Kielhorn, op. cit., p. 159.

[3] P. 162. Cf. Ganguly. H.P.D., p. 212. 

[4] Ep. Ind., XXXII, pp. 141-42.

[5] Cf. Kālidāsa, Mēghadūta (pūrvamēgha). v. 47. For the origin of the name Charmaṇvatī, see Mbh., Drōṇa-parva, Ch. 67.

[6] See J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol, XVI, p. 173 ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, p. 23, 11. 41-42; Ep. Ind., Vol. X, p. 20, text, vv. 9-10. It is equally possible that Vākpati may then have been struggling against the Hūṇas, as to be discussed in the next inscription.

[7] Probably the same as the Minister of the same who dissuaded the king from marching against Tailapa. See P.C.M., p. 33.

[8] Op, cit., p. 159.

[9] C. E. Luard: Western States Gazetteer. Vol. V. part A. 1907. p. 348, where the place (Bhagōr) is also stated to be sacred.

[10] Ibid., p. 350.