Indian Antiquary Vol 43

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 21

JANUARY, 1914.] A NOTE ON THE PADARIYA OR RUMMINDEI INSCRIPTION
distributed over the Kadapa, Anantapûr, S. Canara, Trichinopoly, and Madura districts of the Madras Presidency and the Mysore State."as "Almost all the viceroys, however, were directly responsible to the regent and not to the emperor." Madurai-mandalam i.e., the country around Madura,appears also at this time, as a province of the Vijayanagara kingdom governed by a chief, who was under the direct orders of Narasa Nâyaka.69 It seems that, by gradually getting the control of the provincial viceroys, Narasa Naik practically deposed 70 his ward, and himself assumed the imperial dignity. Immudi Narasimha was indeed not killed, but he sank into the position of a subordinate viceroy in the region of the Kâveri, and there consoled himself, apparently for the loss of his actual power, by the assumption, whether rightly or wrongly, of the high-sounding titles of" the conqueror of Ceylon71 and of all countries," "the witnessor of elephant hunt," etc. The exact date of the Tuluva usurpation is not known, but by 1502 it was a fact.
17
The advent of the Tuluva dynasty to the imperial throne introduces a new epoch in the history of the imperial relations with Madura; but before going to consider them, we shall go back to the period of the Vijayanagar conquest, and trace,as far as the present state of historic research allows, the indigenous history of the Pândyan kingdom. The history of the imperial Viceroys has been sketched, and now the indigenous rulers themselves will command our notice.
(To be continued.)
A NOTE ON THE PADARIYA OR RUMMINDEI INSCRIPTION. BY JARL CHARPENTIER, PH.D.; UPSALA.
1 Devâna piyena Piyadasina lâjina vîsati vasâ bhisitena 2 atana âgaca mahîyite hida Budhe jâte Sakyamuniti
3 silâ vigadabhî câ kâlâpita silâthabhe ca usapâpite 4 hida Bhajavam jâte ti Lumminigame ubalike kate 5 athabhagiye ca.
The literature concerning this inscription until 1903 has been discussed by Pischel, S. B. Pr. A. W. 1903, p. 724 ff., who proposed a new interpretation, based on certain philological and linguistic facts, for the difficult words vigadabhi, line 3, and athabhagiye, line 5. His conclusions were partly approved by Mr. Vincent A. Smith, Ante. XXXIV, 1 ff., who proposed another translation of athabhagiye, but agreed with Pischel concerning vigadabhi1. Dr. Fleet, J.R A.S., 1908, p. 471 ff., suggested another interpretation of silävigadabhicâ, thinking bhicâ to be Sanskrit bhittikâ from bhitti 'wall,' which is wholly improbable from a linguistic point of view, as consonants were not dropped to such an extent at that early stage of Prakṛt dialects; on the other hand, Dr. Fleet's interpretation of athabhagiye seems to mark a progress in comparison with former translations. As for ubalike, line 4,-which was declared by Bühler, E. I., Vol. V. p. 5, not to be derivable from udbalika, but rather from avabalika, Dr. Fleet proposed to connect it (p. 478 f.) with a vernacular word traceable in the Kanarese umbali a rent-free grant etc.; again, Sir C. J. Lyall, J. R. A. S., 1908, p. 850 f., proposed to connect it with a modern word ubari, occurring in Bundelkhand, and meaning an estate held on a quit-rent or something less than the full assessment." And finally Dr. F. W. Thomas, J. R. A. S., 1909, p. 466 f., has proved that the derivation from ud-balika is quite possible, as the Kautiliya-artha astra, p. 111, 4. 12, uses the parallel word uch-chhulka in the sense of free from octroi.'
3 Arch. Surv. 1908-9, p. 169.
69 Ibid; Inse, 39 of 1908; p. 170.
10 According to Muhammadan historians, he was killed. But this is wrong, as insc. of Vira Narasimha are found as late as S. 1427. (Ep. Rep. 1904) Insc. 386 points out that in 1498 Narasa was still
a regont.
71 Ep. Rep. 1910, p. 114. Insc. of Immudi Narasimha have been found at Piramalai (139 & 151 of 1903). They belong to A. D. 1500 They mention one Eppuli Nayak and his gift for the merit of Tipparasa Aiyan in Keralasingha Valanâdu of Piramalai Simai.
1 At least in the text; but in n. 2 on p. 3, Mr. Smith says he is no longer quite confident of the correctness of Pischel's interpretation.
2 A similar suggestion by R. G. Bhandarkar, J. B. Br. R. A. S., XX, 366, n. 14.