________________
No. 37.)
A NOTE ON THE BARAH COPPER-PLATE OF BHOJ ADEVA
243
foe. The Western Chalukya king Satyābraya acquired the surname Paramëtuara (labdha-Parametvar-para-nāmadheya) by the conquest of Harshavardhana, the lord of the entire Northern Country'.
In the matter of identifying Parameswara Sarvavarman with Mahārāja Sarva, of the Sañján plates, who in his own words was a petty ruler', Dr. Sastri, has, I think, fallen into an error in interpreting the significance not only of the surname Parameswara as pointed above, but also of the expression anumati.
The points to be considered in this connection are: (1) whether the petty ruler" Sarva of a kingdom at the foot of the Vindhya hills could or should have had any hand in the gift of a village lying in the Kanyakubja-bhukti which, from the nature of the circumstances, must have been directly under the king (i.e., overlord) Nägabhata himself, whose capital was Känyakubja and (2) whether the expression anumati here connotes, the sanction of an overlord to a gift made by his subordinate. In fact the question of a suzerain's sanction does not arise here for the reason given in the foregoing clause; but it implies the confirmation and maintenance by a later king of the grant made by a predecessor. For example, we find that grants made by previous monarchs, of the same village to the same deity, were re-affirmed by the subsequent kings, in their respective times. A very good example of this is found in the Dēb-Baraņārk inscription of Jivitagupta II (C. 1. I., Vol. III, p. 216, text, lines 12 ff.). From a careful study of this grant, it will be seen that the expression sāsana is applied to the original grant or later affirmation made by the overlord, the king (ibid., lines 13 and 16). The subsequent affirmations are made in accordance with the original gift (cf. pūrva-dattakam-aralambya of line 15 of the grant). The expression anumati of the Barah copper-plate must be construed in the sense of anu[mo]dita of line 17 of this grant. The issue, therefore, reduces itself to this, vit., the grant made originally by the Maukhari). Parametvara Sarvavarman and confirmed later by (the Pratihāra) Mahārāja Nägabhata was restored by Mahārāja Bhöjadēva, after suspension (of it) for some time in the reign of Ramabhadradēva.
The village granted as agrahāra, namely, Valākā is evidently Barah, where the plates were discovered.
Dr. Sastri's readings and interpretations of two other important expressions in this inscription also appear to me to need correction.
In line 10 of the text (p. 18) he reads ET HUY ATRI.... ....aiyarefret and translates it (p. 19) as finding that the allotment was for the time being obstructed .......'. The original, I think, correctly reads en WT.... which would give the natural sense that the enjoyment was for some time obstructed'. There is no relevancy in supposing a reference here to bhäga while the plate actually reads 'bhoga'.
A similar mistake is committed by the editor in his reading AT HTTanta in line 13 of the text and translating it as in accordance with the same old apportionment'. Here also the plate actually reads i n which means in accordance with the original or previous enjoyment'. Here too there is no necessity or relevancy in assuming a reference to bhāga, i. e., apportionment."
1 Above, Vol. IX, p. 100 and Vol. X, p. 102.
*(Prof. Bhandarkar is also inclined to identify Sarvavarman of the Barah Plate with the Maukhari prince of that name. See his List of Inscriptions of Northern India, p. 6, n. 1.-Ed.)
[While this article was in the press, & note discussing some of the points noticed her, appeared in I. 8. Q VOL XIII. No. 3, pp. 503 ff.-Ed.)
