________________
148
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXIX several categories. In many cases, land was granted as a free-gift and a rent-free holding.1 Sometimes a piece of land was sold at a specified price but was made a perpetually rent-free holding. In some other cases, the land is said to have been 'given'; but a specified rent was fixed for it. There were other cases (cf. the charter under discussion) in which land was given without any clear specification whether it was made a free-gift or a rent-free holding. There is little doubt that in many cases the word 'given' actually meant 'sold' and silence about making the land rent-free is an indication that it was revenue-paying, although certain concessions may have often been allowed to be enjoyed by the holders. In ancient India, often the sale of land. was theoretically represented in the form of a gift. This is definitely suggested by the Mitakshara on the Yajnavalkya-smriti, II, 114: sthavarasya vikraya-pratishëdhat.. dana-prasamsach-cha vikraye='pi kartavyě sa-hiranyam-udakam dattvä dana-rūpēņa sthavara-vikrayam kuryat. That Hapōsagrāma was not made a rent-free holding and may have actually been sold seems to be suggested also by the absence of the customary list of officials and subordinates who were usually addressed by the kings while making free gifts of land.
The reference to the joint family in which the four Brahmana brothers Chūdāmaņi, Dēṭōbhā, Garga and Sambhu were living together is very interesting. It is said that they did not get separated for fear of the loss of dharma. This seems to acknowledge the right of the sons to demand partition of the family property (even during the life time of the father) as provided for in the so-called Mitäkshara system of inheritence. It is interesting to note that some early writers on law (e.g., Gautama, 28, 4; Manu, IX, 111) favour partition because it tends to increase dharma. Manu says that "the brothers may stay united, or separate in case they desire an increase of dharma; by living separate dharma increases; therefore separation is meritorious." As indicated by Brihaspati and Narada, when the brothers are undivided the performance of religious acts is single for all of them, but when there is a partition those acts are separately performed by each, and this explains the reference to the increase of dharma by Manu. According to SankhaLikhita, however, brothers may stay together, since being united they would prosper materially.' This view was no doubt shared by the members of the Brahmana family mentioned in our record. The fear of dharma-kshaya referred to in the inscription points to the fact that such acts of dharma as the worship of the gods and manes and the entertainment of guests were easy for a joint family with its undivided property but difficult for each of the tiny families partitioned out of it with the small resources at its disposal.
The great importance of the inscription lies in the fact that it is the only legible record, besides the Nowgong plates of Balavarman, of the Mlechchha dynasty of Pragjyotisha, which was founded by Salastambha and was preceded by the Naraka or Bhauma dynasty, represented by Bhaskaravarman and his predecessors, and succeeded by the Pala dynasty founded by Brahmapala, although both the dynasties of Salastambha and Brahmapala claimed to be offshoots of the ancient Näraka or Bhauma line. According to verses 9-10 of the Bargaon plates of king Ratnapala of the third dynasty of Pragjyotisha kings (i.e., the Pala house of Brahmapala), the kingdom of the descendants of Naraka passed to the Mlechchh-adhinatha
1 Cf. Select Inscriptions, Vol. I, p. 417.
Cf. ibid., pp. 347-9.
See JPASB, Vol. I, pp. 12-13.
Ct. JRAS, 1952, pp. 4 ff.
Cf. P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. III, p. 567.
Bee Kane, op. cit., p. 572.
? Kane, loc. cit.
JASB, 1897, Part I, pp.289-92; Kamarupa-basan-åvali, pp. 73-80. Kamarupa-basan-avali, p. 94.
