Epigraphia Indica Vol 32

SR No.: 032586
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: D C Sircar, B Ch Chhabra,
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1957
Total Pages: 512
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 33 MB

Page 409

306
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXII kinds of harrassment of the persons guilty of certain crimes but even the death of some of the criminals. This throws some light on the responsibility of the public for the preservation of law and order and attaches a special interest to the inscription. Documents relating to this aspect of early Indian life have been discovered in large numbers in South India; but epigraphic evidence on the subject is meagre with reference to North India. The inscription under study shows that conditions in the north were practically similar to those prevailing in the South during the early medieval period. In this connection, it is also interesting to note the ancient Indian attitude towards thefts and murders committed in a village, for which often the landlord or the villagers themselves were held responsible for tracing the thief or murderer or otherwise for compensating the aggrieved party.1
Verse 2 says that, on the date discussed above, the Dvijas or Brahmanas assembled at Lahaḍapura and drafted the sthiti recorded in the inscription and that they made the samvid in question because they were what is called vatu-tunṭ-abhibhuta. Lahaḍapura has been referred to as a grāma in verse 3 below. But whether the word gräma here indicates merely a village or a bigger area with its centre at Lahaḍapura is difficult to determine. The word sthiti has been used in the verse apparently to indicate a fixed decision, ordinance or decree' and samvid in the sense of a mutual agreement or contract'. The nature of our document is thus that of what is called a sthiti-patraka in Smriti literature, which is a document recording the fixed decision of a corporate body. But the calamity called vatu-tunta (or tunta), by which the Dvijas are stated to have been overwhelmed (abhibhuta), is difficult to explain. The word vatu or batu means a youngster especially of the Brahmana class but is also contemptuously applied to adult persons; but the word tunta (or tunța) is not found in Sanskrit. The Hindi lexicons, however, recognise the word dhundh in the sense of 'a thief, robber or swindler', and it is not impossible that tunța in our inscription is a Sanskritised form of it. It may also be suggested that tunța is a mistake for lunṭā used in the sense of a robber or robbery in the present context, although it is recognised in the lexicons in the adjectival sense of robbing'. Thus a gang of robbers seems to have been operating in the area around Lahaḍapura and the local people were suffering from their depredations. The learned Brahmaņas of the area, probably being the leaders of the local society, therefore assembled to find out a remedy for the menace and they came to a decision which is quoted in the following stanzas of the inscription.
Verse 3 suggests that the unsocial activities were meant for the parivada of the Dvijas. The word parivada here appears to be used in the sense of ill-repute. The idea seems to be that the depredations of the unsocial elements were considered by the leaders of the society as conceived in order to put them to shame. It is only another way of saying that the elders responsible for law and order in the village were discredited by the successful operations of the marauders.
Verses 3 ff. contain the text of the sthiti or samvid referred to earlier in verse 2. Verses 3-4 state that the person who would plunder the grama or village (apparently meaning Lahaḍapura) or would be guilty of a drōha (mischief) of any other kind [to its inhabitants], such as the seizure of the cattle (go-mahishy-ādi-vëshṭana) [of the villagers], should be killed at once and his whole property should be confiscated, while his abettor (upashṭambha-dayaka) should be expelled [from the village] and his house [in the village] should be demolished. This shows that the robbers referred to were among the inhabitants of Lahaḍapura and its immediate neighbourhood. In 1 Cf. Yajnavalkyasmriti; II, verses 271-72.
Cf. Kane, Katyayanasäröddhära, v. 254:
Chaturvidya-pura-breni-gana-paur-ädika-sthitib |
tat-siddhy-arthe tu yal-lekhyam tad-bhavěl sthiti-patrakam ||
See also Bribaspati in SBE, Vol. XXXIII, p. 305. For samvid, see Manusmriti, VIII, 19: yo grama-dela-samh ghanamh kritva satyena samvidam | visamvadinnarö löbhätztam räsh fräd=vinivasayet ||