________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIII better days returned to the Kalyana area after the revolution, there was a controversy among the citizens on the restoration of the god's worship. Some of them (probably the local Hindus) argued that the god should be purified at his place [for the re-introduction of his worship]. But there was another group of citizens (probably Musalmans) who were opposed to the re-installation of the deity. Then Thakkura Mala (Malla), son of Thakkura Naiņapala, went to the Khoja (i.e. Ahamada) and represented the case. The Khōjā granted his request saying that the worship of the deity was the religious obligation of the supplicant and the members of his community (kuladharma) and that therefore the deity could be re-installed. Mälä, son of Nainapala, is mentioned in the versified part of the record as Malla, son of Naiņasimha. The word naina in the nam Nainapala or Nainasimha stands for Sanskrit nayana while Mālā is the same as Sanskrit Milla or Mallaka,
72
The interpretation of the above section of the record offered by us here requires some elabo ration since both Mr. Joshi and Mr. Desai have read and interpreted the text differently. Some of their views are quoted in the following analysis while their readings have been quoted generally in the foot-notes to our transcript of the inscription.
As regards the latter part of the above section of the inscription, Joshi's transcript contains several errors while his faulty translation runs as follows: "When at Kalyana, Khwaja Ahmad... (Shahabuddin, etc.) appointed by him (i.e. Kamadina), in Karnataka, during the rebellion, the vicinity of the god Madhukesvara was awaiting consecration. Efforts were being made (?); desires as to why the deity should not be installed were whispered (?)". What he has understood from the text is given elsewhere in the following words: "Due to a mutiny, the local temple was defiled. Attempts were made to find out the image and re-install it in the former place. Nenapal, the son of Thakur Malapo, perhaps out of hesitation consulted the local Qazi who spoke as follows: That is your religious and family duty and you should act upto it'....". These statements are not all correct. Desai's interpretation of this part of the record is equally erroneous. Thus he says, "It seems that, in connection with the revolution (viparyaya) caused by Bahabadinu, the officer of Kalyana, along with Jandamala, went to Syära Mallika. This gave room for confusion which was taken advantage of by the unruly elements who seem to have caused serious damage to the temple of Madhukēsvara and even broken the Sivalinga Soon after this, some devotees of the god from the Karṇața section of the population appear to have made a premature offer to embellish the temple. The text of the relevant passage after correction stands as Kārnāta-lōkaiḥ añjana-buddhiḥ kritä. But this move was not encouraged by the trustees of the temple. After sometime when the governor of the town returned, a representation was made to him in the matter of re-installing the deity and resumption of ceremonial worship as usual, by Thakkura Malla (Mala), son of Vainasimha or Vainapala, who was in charge of the management of the temple. The request was granted by the governor in consultation with his secretary (named Jamḍadāsa, probably the same as Jamḍamala)." Most of these statements appear to be unsupported by the language of the record as read by us.
In the first place, lines 7-8 appear to read Kalyanapurě tam (tan)-nirō(ru)pita-Shō(Khō)jāAhamada-Jamḍamalamtare Syāramallika[tva]m gata(të), 'when Ahamada-Jandamalantara, appointed by him (i.e. Kamadina), was the Syaramallika at Kalyāṇapura.' Jandamalantara seems to be the surname or designation of Khwaja Ahmad, while Syaramallika seems to be derived from the Persian words sair, tax' and malik,' a master' in the sense of Collector of Taxes'. Thus there seems to be no reference to Ahmad having gone to Syara Mallika in the company of Jandamala. Secondly,
1 It is not altogether impossible that the controversy was between the local Saivas and the members of some other Hindu community such as the Vaishnava. But normally a Hindu community is not expected to object to the re-introduction of the worship of a deity by another Hindu community.
