Indian Antiquary Vol 60

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 28

16
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
JANUARY, 1931
His second objection is that Sakațivyavadhanaván, being an adjective qualifying Balagrama, cannot have anything to do with Tarkkâri, which word is at a long distance. It is beyond our comprehension how a word by being a part of an adjective loves its inherent meaning. Vyavadhana is a relative term, and must have relation with two things or places. Balagrama is one--whero is the other one? It cannot but be Tarkkari, which is the only place mentioned immediately before it. The long distance referred to is a clause qualifying Tarkkari, and nothing else. This long distance, therefore, did not stand in its way to refer to Tarkkari by the word tat in tatprasúta. The natural meaning of the expression, suggested by Mr. Majumdar, seem to us rather unnatural. If by ryavadhanaván is meant bounded by,' the direction, i.e., east, west, south, north or on all sirles, would have been mentioned. Is there any such mention ? Mr. Majumdar was surely conscious of the defect in the interpretation of the word ryaradhanaván given by him. He, therefore, added a footnote, saying: "As vyavadhana means 'separation or division' (sce Monier Williams, 8.v.). Sakativyavadhanaván might as well mean "having Salati 18 vyavadhúna,' i.c., separated or 'divided' by Sakați.” But as soon as you say, separated or divided, it must be understood that something has been separated or divided from something else. But what has Sakati separated or divided ? It certainly refers to Tarkkari. If the family had migrated from a distant country, then we should expect some such expression as Tarkkari-vinirggata, which we find in similar cases in marry places : but in the present inscription no such expression has been used.
But after all ‘Sakati' is not a river as has been supposed. It is the name of a village. The Radhi and the Vêrendra Brâhmaņas are known by their gánis or villages where their forefathers lived. Different gotras have got different gánis to distinguish them. They are nowadays used as surnames. Sakati, Balagrâma . and Siyamba (Simba) are among the several gañis of the Varendra Brahmaņas of the Bharadvaja golra. Another village named Kutumbapalli (Kudumba or Kuddmudi) mentioned in this inscription is also a gani name of the Vatsya gotra of the Vårendra Brahmanas. The village of Silimpur, where the stone slab bearing the inscription has been found, is probably a corruption of the village name Siyamba or Siyambapura, where the author of this inscription lived.
Let us now see if we can meet the other objections raised by Mr. Majumdar. He names several plates in which Tarkkârika or Tarkari occurs. In two of these ocours Madhyadesa also. Mr. Majumdar, however, has not exhausted the list of inscriptions in which Tarkkari is mentioned. We have found some more inscriptions in which the name of this village occurs, sometimes with a slight variation, which does not prevent us from recognizing it. From the Katak oopperplate grant of the ninth year of Mahasivagupta I. (E.I.. vol. III, p. 353), he has quoted the following adjective-clause appended to the name of a Brahmaņa donee :Madhyadesiya-Srivallagráma-ve(vi)nirggataya Odradése Sri-Silabhañjapáti-vástavydya Takkarapdrova-Bharadvajagotraya.
From this he has drawn the "natural" conclusion that Tarkkåra or Takkara was in the Madhyadesa. This does not, however, appear to us at all natural. To us the natural meaning of the passage is that the family of the donee originally lived in Takkara and earned the epithet of Takkira-Rharadvija-gotra, thence it migrated to Srivallagrama in Madhyadesa, whence it went to Sri-Silabhañjapâti in Odra-desa. So at least this Takkâra was not in Madhyadeśa. He has quoted another passage from another plate (E.I., vol. XVII, p. 118) -
Sri-Madhyades-antah páti-Takkdrilea-bhattagramavinirggata.
Here, of course, it is clearly stated that this Takkarika was in Madhyadesa, but doos that prove that every place named Takkârik&, wherever it may be found, must belong to Madhyadesa? We are afraid Mr. Majumdar has committed a blunder in thinking that all Takkärikes were one and the same place. This we shall presently see is not the fact. Similarly, Madhyadesa did not always indicate the Madhyadeśa of Manu (chap. II, sloka 21). We have
There is still a village named BAlegråma not far off from Silimpur. Tutturi is a gâni name of the Våren. dra Brahmanas of the Savarna gotra. It approaches in sound to Tarkari and may be a corruption of it.
6 Magadha was sometimes called a Madhya-dosa (Introduction to BauddhAgAna Doha, p. 11). There WAR a Madhyâdesa in ancient Kambuja also. (Ind. Hint. Quarterly, Tany. 1930, p. 100.)