History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v1.c22.42

v1.c22.42

Mr. B. C. Mazumdar's analysis of the historical value of the evidence of the *Mādalā-Pāñji* is distinctly unfair. The *Mādalā-Pāñji* mentions Yayāti, *i. e.*, Mahāśivagupta as the first king of the dynasty and not Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya. The inscriptions of Mahābhavagupta I have not been found to record the grant of any village situated in Orissa proper. Out of five grants of Mahāśivagupta-Yayāti only one refers to the grant of a village in Orissa proper, *i. e.*, Dakṣiṇa Tosala. Therefore, it is most probable that Yayāti was the first king of the dynasty who succeeded in occupying any portion of Orissa proper. Mr. Mazumdar states that "perhaps as the peaceful administration of the country began with Jajāti (? Yayāti), and not with Janamejaya, the original conqueror or organiser, the name of Jajāti stands at the head of the dynastic list of the Somavamśi Rajas of Orissa in the *Mādalā-Pāñji* chronicles, that Jajāti was the son of Janamejaya has, however, been recorded in the *Pāñji*."¹ It must be admitted that according to contemporary inscriptions the *Mādalā Pāñji* is correct, because the inscriptions of Mahābhavagupta I do not prove him to be the master of any part of Orissa proper, while one inscription at least of Mahāśivagupta-Yayāti shows him to be the lord of one portion of Orissa. The only other important point in the inscriptions of Mahāśivagupta-Yayāti is the mention of the Chedis, who are undoubtedly the Chedis of Ratnapura and not the Chedis of Ḍahala, though the learned editor of the Patna plates is inclined to connect Dahaṇa in the last line with Ḍahala and even Mr. Hira Lal wants to connect Dahaṇa with Ḍahala.²