Book Title: Epigraphia Indica Vol 27
Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Previous | Next

Page 256
________________ 185 No. 33] MEHAR PLATE OF DAMODARADEVA ficance, the biruda of Damodaradova is Vaishnavite in its form, and in this respect, it stands much nearer to the biruda, Arirāja-Danuja-nidhara, prefixed to the name of Dasarathulēva, identified hy Dr. N. K. Bhatta sali with Danujamādbava who flourished after the Sena rule. Both Damodaradeva and Dasarathadora were Dēvānvayas and Soma- or Chandra-vansiya Kshatriyas, and both of them were worshippers of Vishnu. These points of coincidence need an explanation. We may only ask: do they not suggest that Dasarathadeva was a descendant of Damodara, if not his immediate successor, and vertainly the most powerful king of the Deva family ? In the present plate, Damodara leva is called Cujapuli only, while in the Adāvadi plate Dasarathadēva is honoured with the epithet of Asvajati-Gajapuli-Narapuli-rajatray-ādhipali. In the former, there is no epithet indicating the place of which Damõlara was the king; while in the latter Dasaratha boldly claims to have obtained the kingdom of Gauda and issued the charter from Vikramapura, which he could not have done had he not succeeded the later Sönas after their fall or extermination. The Chittagong plate of Damodara refers to a village called Kētangapala, which was bounded on the north by the Mitachchada and had in its neighbourhool, if not actually within it, Baghapõkhira "Tiger's Pond'. The village may be identified with the modern Kötangyäpāla, forming a part of the village of Hashimpur, P. S. Patiyā, and bounded on the north by the MarichharaPukhariya which is still the name of a hamlet by the hillside, on the southern bank of the river Saikha. In other words, the inscription relates to a village in the district of Chittagong, and not elsewhere. The present inscription places the village of Mēhāra in the khandala (subdivision) called Vāyisagrāma which in its tim was included in the Paralāyi vishaya of the Samatata mandala lying within the Paundravarddhana bhukti. The Mēhāragräma of the record being no other locality than the present village of Melar, it is easy to determine that Damodaratdiva's kingdom extended at least over the three districts of Tippera, Noakhali and Chittagong. Now the question arises whether the rule of Dāmādara, or for the matter of that, of all the three kings of the Deva family, was confined to the three districts of Chittagong division, or it was coextensive with not only the whole of the Samatata mandala but also with the whole of the Paundravarddhana bhukti, as it was then known. Apart from being described as Gajapati in one plate and Sakaln-bhūpati-chakravartin (the Lord of all the kings), in the other there is no other indication whatever that Damodara or any predecessor of his in his own line was a parumount sovereign. Nor does it appear that they were Sīmantas under the successors of Lakshmanasena, who somehow maintained the position as Grudescara and paramount sovereign within the Paundravarddhana bhukti at least for seventeen years after the death of Lakshmamasina. The length of the reign of Kesava, the second son of Lakshmanasona, is not as yet determined. But certain it is that the reign of Madhumathana-Madhusūdana at least was synchronous with that of the two later Söna kings. Hal Damodara or any of his two predecessors succeeded in supplanting the Senas within the Paundra varddhana bhukti, he would have usurped forth with all the high-sounding epithets including Gaudēśvara, as was done subsequently by Dasarathadēva. But Damodara passed as the Arirūja-Chūnura-Mādhava without the title Gaulēsvara. It is in the Mehär plate of Dümüda radova that Samatata finds mention, perhaps, for the first time as a mandala, within, of course, the Paundravarddhana bhukti. And this may have been a creation of Purushottama's family for distinguishing it from Vanga, apparently a mandula under the rule of the later Sēnas within the same Paundravard dhana bhukti, which included in it Vikramapura and 1 Inscriptions of Bengal, III, p. 182. : Kitangapali must then have comprised a much larger area than it doos now. XVI.1.20

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490