A Copper-plate Grant of Bahadur Singh of Kullu

Reproduced from the Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India for the year 1903-04.

A Copper-plate Grant of Bahadur Singh of Kullu

by J. Ph. Vogel

AMONG the copper-plates in possession of Pandit Mohan Lal, guru to His Highness the Raja of Chamba, there is one, which presents the exceptional case of a grant, the grantee of which can be readily identified, whereas the identification of its donor affords a certain amount of difficulty. The grantee, “the great Pandit Ramāpati, the son of Pandit Surānand and a resident of the illustrious town of Chamba,” was an ancestor of the present owner of the copper-plate and must have held the office of rājaguru for more than half a century, under three, perhaps even four, consecutive rulers of Chamba. His name occurs as that of the author of the title-deed on the copper-plates issued by Pratāp Singh, and on those of Balabhadra, the latter’s grandson, during the earlier part of his reign. It is clear that Ramāpati must also have been the spiritual preceptor of Balabhadra’s father Vīrabhāna, though it is not attested by any document. His name is last found on a plate dated Śāstra-saṃvat 86, Vikrama-saṃvat 1667, Kārttika ba ti II^[1]. The next grant issued by Balabhadra in Śāstra-saṃvat 5, Vikrama-saṃvat 1686, Māgha śu ti. 12, is signed by a Pandit Padmanābha, and all later plates by Ramāpati’s son Laksmīkānta. We may therefore assume that the death of Ramāpati occurred between the two dates mentioned. The earliest mention of his name is on the copper-plate, which is here edited for the first time. We do not know who ruled Chamba in the Śāstra year 35 (AD 1559); probably it was Ganeśavarman, who was certainly still Raja in the preceding year. That Ramāpati stood high in favour with his noble patrons, appears from the fact that three more plates, besides the present one, record grants of land bestowed upon him, namely, two of the four plates which we possess of Pratap Singh, and the first of the twenty plates of Balabhadra.

It is strange to find that the donor of the grant under discussion does not bear one of the four names enumerated, but calls himself Bahadur Singh. From his titles it may be inferred that he was an independent chief, but the name is not found in the genealogical roll of the Chambā rājās, nor in any other copper-plates. The simplest explanation would be to assume that Bahadur Singh was another name of Raja Gaṇeśavarman, which would be in agreement with the custom of double nomenclature still in vogue among the Chamba rulers. This assumption would be the more plausible, as the inscription mentions as second donor the heir-apparent (yuvarāja), Pratap Singh, and this was as stated above, the name of Gaṇeśavarman’s son and successor.

On the other hand, it is noteworthy that Chamba is only mentioned as the place of residence of the grantee, not as that of the donor, as is the case with all other copper-plates issued by Rājās of Chamba. It is also remarkable that the motto Satyaṁ pramāṇam of the donor of this grant is not found on any of Gaṇeśavarman’s plates. A still greater objection is that none of the localities mentioned in the inscription are known to exist in Chamba. May we assume then that Bahadur Singh was the ruler of some other State? The supposition is admissible, for among the plates of Balabhadra is one which is issued in favour of the guru of his neighbour, the Raja of Narpur.

The surname Singh was only in use among a limited number of Rājpūt families, as in Kullu, where it replaced the older Pāl. It is said that the first Raja of Kullu who adopted the surname was Sidh Singh. Now we find that the name of his successor was Bahadur Singh, and there is every reason to believe that he was the donor of the grant in question. The exact date of his reign is unknown, but Jagat Singh, who ruled in the middle of the 17th century, is separated from him by four Rājās. Assuming twenty-five years for each reign, we arrive at the conclusion that Bahadur Singh must have lived about the middle of the 16th century, which is, as we saw, approximately the date of our inscription. Moreover, Bahadur Singh’s successor was Pratap Singh, who consequently must have been yuvarāja during his lifetime.^[2]

Our hypothesis will become a certainty, if the localities mentioned in the grant can be identified with places in Kullu. For it is clear that a Rājā cannot dispose of land outside his own territory.

The “hermitage of Pulastya” (Pulastyāśrama) I am unable to identify with certainty. Though the worship of ṛṣis, locally called rikhis, is very prominent in Kullu, no shrine dedicated to Pulastya is said to exist. Mr. H. Calvert, I.C.S., Assistant Commissioner of the Kullu Sub-division, has, at my request, made enquiries regarding this point on the occasion of the Dasahra fair at Sultanpur. But among the numerous ṛṣis, nāgas and other devatās gathered to pay their respect to Raghunatha, Pulastya was conspicuous by his absence.

The second locality mentioned in the grant of Bahadur Singh is the village of Haṭṭa. This, I believe, can be identified with certainty. On the confluence of the Biyās and the Ropṛu nālā, half a mile east of Bajaura (map Bajaora; lat. 31°50′, long. 77°13′) we meet with a hamlet of the name of Hāṭ, which would exactly correspond with Skr. Haṭṭa (Cf. ghāṭ, from Skr. ghaṭṭa, and gharāṭ = watermill, from Skr. gharaṭṭa). Hāṭ is also the name of one of the two phāṭis, in which the Bajaura koṭhi is subdivided.^[3] The Sanskrit word haṭṭa means “a market,” a very appropriate name for the spot, where the Central Asian trade route, after crossing the Dulci Pass, reaches the Upper Biyās valley. The antiquity of Hāṭ is attested by a very fine liṅga temple, profusely decorated with carvings^[4] and by the remnants of three more stone temples. One of these, known as Jhaumpṛu śail (śail = a stone temple from śilā = stone), was still extant in the summer of 1901, though much ruined and partly buried in the sands of the Ropṛu Khad. This points to the fact that this stream has changed its course, which probably was the reason why Hāṭ became superseded by Bajaura, situated at a safe distance from the dangerous confluence.

It will be seen that the Ropṛu nālā is the boundary between Kullu and Mandi, as noticed by the traveller Moorcroft,^[5] who also mentions the Bajaura fort, which must have been demolished shortly before 1870. Its site is now occupied by a tea plantation. I am inclined to think that this fort (or a previous one standing on the same spot) is referred to in our copper-plate, if at least we may assign to the word draṅga the same meaning which it once had in Kaśmīr, namely, that of “a frontier fort, or a watch station.”^[6]

In the same passage Moorcroft says that the Ropṛu flows at the foot of an eminence, on which stood the village of Syri. This I feel inclined to identify with the Sīrī-sthāvara of the copper-plate. Its position not far from Hāṭ would make the identification very plausible. I must, however, remark that, according to the information supplied by Mr. Calvert, the correct form of the name would seem to be Sairi. On the survey-map the name Sirg evidently marks the position of the village referred to by Moorcroft. It is interesting to find that the land granted by Bahadur Singh consisted of saffron-fields. Cultivation of saffron, for which Kaśmīr is still famous,^[7] is nowadays practically unknown in Kullu, though the physical conditions are probably as favourable there as in the valley of the Jhelam. Mr. Calvert informs me that there used to be saffron fields in Kullu. There was one, he says, quite near and below the castle which is now a tea-field belonging to Mr. Minniken; and up to five or six years ago there were a few saffron plants remaining there. It will be noticed how well this agrees with the topography of our inscription. For it was the ancient castle of Bajaura, near which the saffron-fields granted to Paṇḍit Ramāpati must have been situated. The area of the granted land is expressed in prastha, a measure of grain, according to the custom, universally practised in the hills, of indicating the size of the land by the quantity of seed-corn required for its cultivation.^[8] The pathā (the modern form of prastha) is still the unit used in Kullu for measuring grain. One pathā of husked rice is equivalent to 4⅓ kaccā ser (nearly 2 pakka ser or 4 lbs.). Twenty pathā make one lākh.^[9] The total area of the land given to Paṇḍit Ramāpati was therefore 4½ lākh, and required 180 pakkā ser of seed-corn for its cultivation.

As we have thus been able to locate in Kullu at least one of the places mentioned in the grant of Bahadur Singh, his identity with the Kulla Raja of that name may be regarded as certain. This conclusion adds considerably to the interest of the inscription. Kullu is undoubtedly one of the most ancient principalities of the Panjab Hills. It is described by Hiuen Tsiang^[10] under the name K’iu-lu-to, and on two Chamba copper-plates^[11] of the 11th century mention is made of the Lord of Kulūta, which is the ancient designation under which it is repeatedly referred to in Sanskrit literature. Nevertheless not a single pre-Muhammadan inscription has come to light in Kullu, a fact which is probably due to the backwardness of its inhabitants, who are described by Hiuen Tsiang as “coarse and common in appearance” and “of a hard and fierce nature.” The inscriptions found in Kullu are all comparatively modern; they are without an exception composed in the local vernacular and written in a kind of Ṭākarī derived from the ancient Śāradā.^[12] These two circumstances combined render their interpretation far from easy. One of the oldest epigraphs is that on the famous temple of Ḍhuṅgrī near Manālī, in the upper part of the Biyās valley, which is known as Waziri Paroḷ.^[13] This shrine, profusely decorated with wood-carving, is dedicated to Hiṛmā Devī, the patron goddess of Kullu, in whom students of Sanskrit literature will recognize the rākśasī Hiḍimbā, the spouse of Bhimasena the Pāṇḍava. The inscription is of special interest for my present subject, because it mentions the name of Raja Bahadur Singh as founder of the temple. Its date is J(y)eṭh pra. 20, the 29th year of the Śāstra-saṃvat. The figures indicating the centuries are omitted, which is characteristic of this era, so that it would be impossible to fix its date without the aid of some other document. This we possess in our copper-plate which is dated Saṃvat 35, Kartika śu. ti. 11. It is true that here also the date is expressed in the Śāstra-saṃvat, but, as we know that the grantee died between A.D. 1610 and 1629, the figures for the century can be supplied with certainty. The corresponding Christian year must be 1559. Consequently the year of the Dhungri inscription can only be A.D. 1553, and we have thus been enabled to date one of the most interesting monuments of the Kullu valley.

Another prominent temple of the upper Biyās valley is that of Saṁdhyā Devī or “the goddess of dawn” in the ancient village of Jagatsukh, which traditionally is believed to have once been the capital of Kullu. The temple of Saṁdhyā Devī has been largely renewed, but it contains some portions which are evidently ancient. On two slabs placed on the enclosing wall at the entrance of the court-yard an inscription^[14] is cut in three lines of 40 to 48 cm. in length. I must, for reasons stated above, abstain from giving a full transcript and translation of this epigraph. So much is certain that the first line reads: Śrī Maharāja Udhran (read Urdhan^[15]) Pāl. The second line commences with the name of Saṁdhyā Devī, and the third seems to contain a date, which I read Saṁ. 4(?) ba. ti. 2. It refers of course to the Śāstra-saṃvat, and we must look for some other document to decide which figure we are to supplement for the hundreds.

The name U[r]dhan Pāl is found in the vaṃśāvalī, as that of Bahadur Singh’s third predecessor. The date of the temple of Saṁdhyā Devī is therefore separated from that of Hiḍimbā by the time occupied by the full reigns of Kailās Pāl and Sidh Pāl, and the partial reigns of Urdhan Pāl and Bahadur Singh. We may say by three full reigns. We shall therefore have to take either A.D. 1428 or 1528 as the date of the temple at Jagatsukh. In the first case the reigns of the intervening Rājās would have been very long, namely, some forty years each; in the second case they could not have exceeded an average of seven years. The latter assumption seems to me the more plausible. Possibly the Jagatsukh inscription falls towards the end of Urdhan Pāl’s reign and that of Ḍhuṅgrī in the beginning of that of Bahadur Singh, which would leave a somewhat larger space for the two intervening reigns of Kailas Pāl and Sidh Pāl.

The above topographical discussion points to the fact that Bahadur Singh ruled over the whole of Kullu proper, i.e., the upper Biyās valley. This is quite in accordance with the tradition which holds that he was the first to extend his territory,^[16] which under the Pāl dynasty consisted only of Waziri Paroḷ. There is one point, however, still to be elucidated. The present Waziris, Lag Mahārāja and Lag Sārī, once formed an independent principality which was overthrown by Rājā Jagat Singh. This is fully confirmed by one of the Persian Sanads, dated the 3rd of Jumāda-th-thāniyah, A.Н. 1067, addressed by Dārā Shikoh to Jagat Singh “zamīndār” of Kullu.^[17] As we have seen that Bahadur Singh’s rule extended over Bajaurā and Ḍhuṅgrī, we shall have to assume that the principality of Lag, situated between those two places, though ruled by its own Rājā, was tributary to the Mahārāja of Kullu. Another point closely connected with this question is that of the origin of Sultānpur, the modern capital of Kullu. This place, situated on the confluence of the Biyās and the Śarvari stream, is said to have become the capital in the reign of Jagat Singh, who conquered it from the last Rājā of Lag. The latter’s name is given as Sultān Cand in the Kangra Gazetteer, but in the same work it is stated elsewhere that Jay Cand was the last Rājā of Lag, and Sultān Cand his brother. According to Captain Harcourt’s informants, Sultānpur was named after this Sultān Cand.^[18]

It must, a priori, appear strange, that the new capital of the Kullu Rājās was named after a petty chief, by whose expulsion it fell into their possession. In the sanad, referred to above, the name of the Rājā of Lag, after whose death Jagat Singh annexed the territory, is neither Jay Cand, nor Sultān Cand, but Jok (read Jog) Cand. This also tends to raise a doubt as to the authenticity of the said tradition. Nor is it in accordance with another tradition preserved by Moorcroft that “the removal (from Nagar, the ancient capital) took place about three centuries ago,”^[19] which would mean about 1525 A.D.

It will be seen that in our inscription Bahadur Singh calls himself by another name, Suratrāṇā-rājā. The word Suratrāṇā is often found in Sanskrit inscriptions,^[20] as the rendering of the Arabic sultān, so that the name can mean nothing else than Rājā Sultān. And the fact is still known in Kullu, as Mr. Calvert informs me, that Bahadur Singh called himself by that name. In connection therewith it is of great interest that there exists a tradition, different from that mentioned above, regarding the origin of Sultānpur. During my stay there I was told by the old wazir of the Rāi of Rūpī, the descendant of the ancient Rājās, that Sultānpur was founded by Sultān Singh, and Dhāpur, the suburb on the right bank of the Śarvarī, by his brother Ḍhāl Singh. It will be noticed how well this agrees chronologically with the passage quoted from Moorcroft. For Sultān Singh, alias Bahadur Singh, ruled in 1653, and it is only natural that, after conquering the valley as far down as Bajaura, he removed his capital to a place situated in the centre of his dominions, while probably keeping Nagar as his summer-residence. Anyhow, it seems to me highly probable, in view of the above, that it was not a defeated Rājā of Lag, but the victorious chief of Kullu, who gave his name to the modern capital.

We have already seen that the copper-plate grant under discussion mentions as second donor the heir-apparent Pratāp Singh, and thereby establishes the authenticity of the genealogical roll of the Kullu Rājās published by Captain Harcourt. Our inscription acquaints us, moreover, with Bahadur Singh’s grand-wazir (Skr. mahaāmantrin) Nārāyan Singh, and with the Rājā’s three daughters Sunu, Gaṅgā and Raṅgo. For it was on the occasion of the marriage of these three ladies, that the grant was given to the rājaguru of Chamba; from which it may be inferred that they were married into the ruling family of that State. The bridegroom was presumably Pratāp Singh, the heir-apparent (to wit, of Chamba), if he had not yet succeeded his father Gaṇeśavarman by that time. For a Rājā of Kullu could not give his daughters in marriage to any one below a ruling chief or heir-apparent. The saying is that in matters of war and marriage a Rājā deals only with his equals. For two or more sisters to be married at the same time and to the same person is by no means an uncommon practice among Hill Rājpūts. The liberality shown on this occasion to Paṇḍit Ramāpati indicates that Bahadur Singh attached much importance to a matrimonial alliance with Chamba. For we read at the end of the inscription that the Rājā “gave to Ramāpati the price of the land and again presented him with the same,” vis., he gave him in addition to the land its full value in money. And on his annual inspection of his possessions in Kullu he would receive a large hawk and a ser of saffron. The former may seem a somewhat unsuitable present to a pious Brahman, whose dharma forbids him to kill animals. But we know from elsewhere that the Rājās of Kullu, and probably other chiefs in the same position, were in the habit of sending a hawk as a tribute to the Emperor of Delhi.^[21] Bahadur Singh evidently wished to do special honour to Ramāpati by a present otherwise due to his suzerain.

Besides a shop inside the frontier-fort, the gurudakṣiṇā comprised also “a very excellent thathikā to catch hawks,” (śyena-bandhana-thathikā parama-śre ṣṭhā). The word thathikā is not Sanskrit, but evidently a sanskritised vernacular term which would seem to be the modern thātī of the Kullu dialect, a technical term particularly used in connection with hawking. I quote the following from the Gazetteer:^[22] “The best way of catching hawks was the thātī which is a sort of triangular enclosure erected at a prominent place on a ridge or spur, so as to draw the attention of the birds. Poles are set up at the three angles, and two of the sides are enclosed with nets, but the base of the triangle which is towards the hill top is clear; the apex is on the down hill side. A chikor is tied close to the ground inside the enclosure to attract the hawks by its call, and when one swoops down upon it, a man who is concealed in a thicket close by rushes forward, and drives the hawk into the net where he secures it.”

Regarding the inscription under discussion the following points may be noted: The copper-plate, on which it is engraved, is of irregular shape, the average height being 21.5 cm., and the breadth 26 cm. at the top and 32 cm. at the bottom. To the proper right a handle of 2 cm. in length projects. The inscription consists of 20 lines. The first seven lines are only from 21.5 to 22.5 cm. broad, leaving an open rectangular space to the proper right, which is occupied by the motto, and by lines 18–19, which are written vertically and are about 10 cm. in length. The last line is written all along the proper right margin. It would seem that these three lines were added afterwards. The letters which measure 1 to 15 cm. are well engraved. The character is a transition from the ancient Śāradā to the modern Ṭākarī or Ṭāṅkarī. It is interesting to note that r after a consonant is sometimes expressed in the old fashion by a stroke to the proper right (cf. draṅga, l.10) or in the modern way by a stroke to the proper left (cf. caṁdra l.18). The peculiar script used in the copper-plates of this period is designated in Chamba by the name of Devāśeṣa. The language is Sanskrit, metrical only in the quotations from the Smṛti, which occur in the second portion of the inscription. Though by no means free from errors, the language is comparatively correct, considering the date and the place of origin of the record. The mistakes are mostly due to negligence in observing the saṁdhi rules and in the use of the signs of punctuation. I have made only such corrections as seemed necessary for the right understanding of the meaning. The lengthy Yamaka compound in ll. 1–3 is regularly found in the Chamba grants of this period.

TRANSCRIPT

ओं^[23] सत्यं प्रमाणम्

ओं स्वस्तिः ॥ राम-राम-राम-पराक्रम-पराक्रमण-दक्ष-दक्षजाकांत-[l.2] नितांत-चरण-शरण-कृतांतःकरण-रणविशारद-शारद-हिम[कर^[24]]-करानु-[l.3] कारि यशः-पूर-पूरित-दिगंतर- परमभट्टारक-महाराजाधिराज श्री-ब[l.4]हादर सिंह-देवपादाः॥॥ महाश्री-युवराज-प्रतापसिंहः महामंत्रि[l.5] वर-नारायणसिंहः॥॥ श्री-चंपक-पुर-स्थ-महापंडित-रमापतये। पंडित-सु [l.6] रानंद-पुत्राय त्रिकुलनिर्मलाय त्रिसंध्योपासकाय षट्‌कर्मरताय स्वकर-कमल-[l.7] चित्रितं विचित्रं प्रसादभूमि-पत्रं समर्पयंति। तत्र च भूमि-बीजभरणादि-वरं। आदौ- [l.8] ज-सुनु-नाम-राज दुहितुः पाणिग्रहण-समये पुलस्त्याश्रमनिकटाद्बीज-प्रस्थ त्रिंशतिः गंगा-नाम-राज- [l.9] दुहितुः विवाह-समये । हट्ट-ग्राम-समीपाद्बीज-प्रस्थ-त्रिंशतिः रगो-नाम राजदुहितुः विवाहे सीरीस्थावर- [l.10] मध्याद्बीजप्रस्थ त्रिंशतिः^[25] सर्वं कुंकुम-भूमिबीज-भरणादि^[26]-वरमेकं प्रसादी-कृतं दत्तम ।। ।। द्रंगांतरात्^[27]। पुरुक- [l.11] भभोकयोः हट्टमेकम्। श्येन-बन्धन-थथिका परमश्रेष्ठा एका । एतत्सर्वं गुरुदक्षिणार्थं श्री-बहादरसिंह- राज्ञा र- [l.12] मापतये पंडिताय^[28] प्रसादीकृतं दत्तं । तदनेन ससंतानेनाचन्द्रसूर्यमण्डल-ध्रुवमण्डल-ब्रह्माण्ड- स्थिति-प [l.13] र्यंतमुपभुजंनीयम्^[29] ।। ।। योत्रापहर्ता स दंड्‌यो वध्यो नरकपाती स्यात् ।। तत्र स्मृतिश्लोकाः ।। ।। अन्धो द्वादश जन्मा- [l.14] नि। दश जन्मानि सूकरः । कुष्ठी द्वादश जन्मानि । स्वयं-दत्तापहारकः^[30]।। सुरात्राण-राज-दुहितृ^[31]-विवाह-समये । एको [l.15] महाश्येन एकं शेटकं कुंकुम^[32]च संकल्पितं तत्तु रमापति-तत्पुत्रादयो यदायान्ति तदानीमेव वर्षे देयं ।।।। [l.16] सुवर्णमेकं गामेकां भूमेरप्येकमंगुलं^[33]। हरतत्ररकमाप्नोति याव-दिंद्राश्चतुर्दश^[34] सं ३५ कार्तिक^[35] शुति ११ ॥ [l.17] साधारणो^[36]धर्मसेतुर्नराणां काले काले पालनीयो भवद्भिः । सर्वानेतान्भाविनो पार्थिवेन्द्रान्भूयो भूयो याचते रामचंद्रः ।। ।। [l.18] विवाहात्प्रवर्तन^[37] भूमेर्मौल्यं ब[l.19] हादरसिंह-राज्ञा दत्तं^[38] सा भूमिः^[39] [l.20] पुनः संकल्पदत्ता^[40] रमापतये । लिखितं महापंडित-कर्पूरेण श्री^[41]

TRANSLATION

True warrant.

Om hail! He of the valour of the three Rāmas,^[42] dexterous in attacking the enemy; he, whose heart has taken refuge at the lofty feet of the Beloved of Dakṣa’s daughter;^[43] he, who is experienced in warfare and with the fulness of his glory, imitative [of the rays] of the autumnal moon, has filled the Universe; the supreme prince, the king of kings, the illustrious lord, His Highness Bahadur Singh; the very illustrious heir-apparent Pratāp Singh [and] the excellent prime-minister Nārāyaṇ Singh offer to the great Paṇḍit Ramāpati, the son of Paṇḍit Surānand, who resides in the illustrious town of Chamba, the spotless descendant of three houses, who worships at the three divisions of the day^[44] and delights in the six duties^[45] [as a token] of their favour an ornamental charter [recording a grant] of land [and] adorned with their own lotus-like hands^[46] and thereby a gift of land, with [its] seed-corn, rent^[47] and so forth. He has been favoured and presented at the time of the marriage of the Rājā’s first-born daughter, Sunu by name, with [a field requiring] thirty pathās of seed-corn, situated in the neighbourhood of Pulastya’s hermitage. At the time of the wedding of the Rājā’s daughter, Gaṅgā by name, with [a field requiring] thirty pathā of seed-corn in the vicinity of the village of Hāṭ [and] at the wedding of the Rājā’s daughter, Raṅgo by name, with [a field requiring) thirty pathās of seed-corn on Sīrī Hill, altogether a gift of saffron-fields with [their] seed-corn, rent and so forth. [Further] a shop [kept by] Puru and Bhabho,^[48] inside the frontier-fort, and a most excellent triangular net (thāṭī) for catching hawks. With all this as a gurudakṣiṇā has Paṇḍit Ramāpati been favoured and presented by the Rājā, the illustrious Bahadur Singh. It should be enjoyed by him and his offspring for as long as the moon, the sun, the polar star and the earth shall endure. He who confiscates it is to be chastised and killed, and will go down to hell. The following are verses from the law-books: “He who confiscates what he himself has given will be a blind man for twelve existences, a hog for ten existences [and] a leper for twelve existences.” At the time of the marriage of Rājā Sultān’s daughters a large hawk and a ser of saffron has been presented [to the grantee], and this is to be given every year at that very time when Ramāpati or his descendants come [to Kullu]. “He who takes away one gold piece, one cow or one inch of land, will go to hell for as long as the fourteen Indras exist.” Anno 35, [the month of] Kārtika, the bright fortnight, the lunar day 11. “The common law of men, firm like an embankment, should be guarded by you at any time; [this] Rāmacandra enjoins again and again upon all future princes.” Rājā Bahadur Singh has given to Ramāpati the price of the land granted on occasion of the wedding,^[49] and has again presented him with the land. Written by the great Paṇḍit Karpūra. Bliss.

Notes

^[1] See the list of Chamba copper-plates published A.S.R. 1902–03, pp. 245–6.

The Śāstra-saṃvat is the same as the Saptarṣi-saṃvat, or Lokakāla, also known as Rāja-saṃvat, Pahāri-saṃvat or Kaccā-saṃvat. Cf. Cunningham. Book of Indian eras, p. 6 sqq.

^[2] Cf. the list of the Kullu Rājās in Capt. A. F. P. Harcourt. The Himalayan districts of Kooloo, Lahoul, and Spiti (London, 1871), p. 370 sqq. The genealogical list of the Kulla Rājās is evidently based on an authentic vaṃśāvalī. Unfortunately no proper system of transliteration has been followed, which renders it often impossible to decide on the correct forms of the names. Compare, for instance, Shureedut Taeshur Pal and Shirree Jerashur Pal. It would be well to re-edit the list, if the authentic vaṃśāvalī were procurable.

^[3] Kangra Gaselteer (Lahore 1899), Pt. II, p. 125.

^[4] Capt. Harcourt, op. cit., pp. 195 and 347 sqq., gives an enthusiastic, but not always accurate, description of this temple and its decoration. The alto-rilievoes represent Gaṅgā and Yamunā on both sides of the entrance, and Gaṇeśa, Viṣṇu and Durga Aṣṭabhuja in the outer niches of the south, west and north walls, respectively. Cf. also Moorcroft, Travels, Vol. I, p. 169 sq., and J. Calvert, Vazeeri Rupi (London, 1873), p. 15 sqq.

^[5] “This river (the Rupareri, i.e. the Ropṛu) here divides Mundi from Kulu, and running under the walls of Bajaura, falls into the Byas on its right bank. Bajaura is a large square fort belonging to Kulu, it consists of square towers connected by a low curtain, the whole built of hewn stone strengthened with beams of fir.” Moorcroft, op. cit., p. 169. Cf. also Calvert, op. cit., p. 13 (with a picture of the fort).

^[6] Cf. Rājat. (tranal., Stein), Vol. II. p. 391.

^[7] “Learning, lofty houses, saffron, icy water and grapes things that even in heaven are difficult to find, are common there (vis. in Kaśmīr).” Rājat. I, 42, Cf. Dr. Stein’s note here and at I, 220 also.

^[8] Cf. Dr. Stein’s note at Rājat., V. 71 and A.S.R., 1902–03, Vol. I, p. 250, foot-note 10.

^[9] Cf. Kangra Gazetteer, Pt. II, p. 104, and A. H. Diack, The Kulu dialect, p. 83. s. v. pathā.

^[10] Si-yu-ki (transl., Beal), Vol. I, p. 177.

^[11] A. S. R., 1902–03, р. 268.

^[12] Dr. Bühler, Indische Palæographie, p. 57, speaks of “die sogenannte Ṭakkari der Dogrā von Jammu and Nachbarschaft.” In reality Tākari (or Ṭāṅkarī) is commonly used all through the Panjab Hills, and is also known in the plains.

^[13] The word paroḷ, proḷ in the dialects of Kāngrā, Kullu and Chamba, means “the main gate of any large building, especially a palace or castle and, used as pars pro toto, the palace itself.” It is a very appropriate name for that narrow part of the upper Biyās valley, which towards the Rohtang pass assumes the appearance of a gate. The word paroḷ is presumably like Hindi paul derived from Skr. pratolī. See my note in Album Kern (Leiden, 1903), p. 235 sqq.

^[14] A facsimile (evidently a hand-copy) will be found at the end of Captain Harcourt’s book. I may note in passing that the inscription of Basiṣṭ, of which also a facsimile is given, is written in the Telugu character, presumably by some wandering mendicant on his visit to the sacred spring.

^[15] Cf. Dr. Bühler’s remark, Epigr. Ind., Vol. I, p.17.

^[16] Harcourt, op. cit., p. 115; Gazetteer, p. 19.

^[17] Four original Sanads are in possession of Rājā Hira Singh, Jāgirdār of Dalāsh, and thirteen copies of Sanads, the originals of which are lost, I obtained from the Rāi of Rūpī.

^[18] Gazetteer, p. 20 (foot-note), and p. 123. Harcourt, op. cit. p. 110.

^[19] Moorcroft, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 184.

^[20] Cf. Epigr. Ind., Vol. III, pp. 32, 40, 115 and 148; Vol. VI, pp. 2 and 270.

^[21] In a letter dated the 8th of Rabi ‘u-l-awwal A.H. 1067, Dārā Shikoh acknowledges the receipt of a hawk and a hill pony (tāngan) sent by Rājā Jagat Singh of Kullu as a present to the imperial court.

^[22] Kangra Gazetteer, Pt. II, p. 109 sq. In Diack’s Grammar the word is spelled thātī. That the second syllable of thathikā is thi instead of ṭi or ṭṭi is possibly due to a clerical error. In the dialect of Chamba again the word is pronounced thatī.

^[23] Expressed by a symbol.

^[24] Restored from an alogous passages in Chamba copper-plates.

^[25] The visarga is omitted in the original.

^[26] In the original there in an anusvāra over ṇā. Possibly ot belongs to the next syllable.

^[27] The anusvāra over gā has been omitted in the original.

^[28] The anusvāra over pa has been omitted in the original

^[29] The ungrammatical form upabhuñjaniyam occurs already in the Chamba copper-plates.

^[30] The original has svayaṁdatapahārakaḥ.

^[31] The original has duhitur.

^[32] The correct construction would be ekaṁ kuṅkumaśeṭakaṁ.

^[33] The original has bhūmir.

^[34] The anusvāra over di has been omitted in the original. After caturdaśa it has a visarga.

^[35] The original has Karttika, followed by a vertical stroke.

^[36] The original has sādhāro yaṁ.

^[37] The original has parvatana, a form evidently due to vernacular influence: cf. the words parjā ( Skr. prajā), parviṣṭa (Skr. praviṣṭa), etc.

^[38] The original seems to have dātaṁ, but the second akṣara is slightly damaged.

^[39] The visarga is omitted in the original.

^[40] The form saṁkalpadattā corresponds with the vernacular saṁkalp dittā. The meaning of saṁkalp is “a donation, a grant.”

^[41] The last three words obviously belong to the original inscription, but lines 18–19 and the first part of 20 appear to have been added afterwards.

^[42] Balarāma, Paraśurāma and Rāmacandra.

^[43] Dakṣa’s daughter is Pārvatī; her beloved is Siva.

^[44] Dawn, noon and sunset.

^[45] Studying (adhyayana), teaching (adhyāpana), sacrificing (yajana), sacrificing for others (yājana), giving (dāna) and receiving (pratigraha) are the six duties of a Brāhman.

^[46] Provided with their signature.

^[47] It is difficult to decide, which exact meaning is to be assigned to the word bharaṇa, either “the rent to be paid by the farmers to the landowner” or “the tribute to be paid to the king” or perhaps “the produce of the land.”

^[48] The words Puruka and Bhabhoka I presume to be sanskritised proper names.

^[49] The literal meaning of vivāhāt pravartana-bhūmer (if the emendation be correct) would be “of the land coming forth from the wedding.”