History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c43.87
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c43.87
- Language
- English
v3.c43.87.1
In the earliest records verses lauding gifts and deprecating their resumption are few (one or two) but in later records their number increases. For example, in the copperplate of Maitraka Vyāghrasena (E. I. vol. XI, p. 221) there are only two verses and in the plates of Dhruvasena dated Gupta-Valabhī saṁvat 206 and 210 respectively there are only two and three verses (E. I. vol. XI. pp. 107, 111), while there are 16 verses in an inscription of Yaśaḥkarṇadeva dated in Kalacuri *saṁvat* 823 (E. I. vol. XII p. 205) and 15 verses in the copperplate grant of Cāhamāna Ratnapāla dated in Vikrama saṁvat 1176 (E. I. vol. XI, pp. 312-313). In most of the inscriptions containing these laudatory and imprecatory verses, they are cited as from Vyāsa or Manu or from smṛti in general. In the Appendix²⁰²⁵ a list of about forty such verses is given and in the footnotes it is pointed out wherever possible from what smṛti or other source they are taken and a reference is made to some of the earliest inscriptions and grants where they occur. The references will show that these verses occur in inscriptions from all parts of India. Two of the most usual verses are: 'the earth was donated by many such kings as Sagara and others; whatever king is lord of the earth at any particular time enjoys the reward (merit) of the gift of that land.
v3.c43.87.2
The donor of land enjoys bliss in heaven for sixty thousand years and he who destroys (or resumes) it or who abets the destruction dwells in hell for the same period.' In spite of such imprecations it appears that lands donated by former kings were sometimes confiscated by their successors. For example, in an inscription of Indrarāja III dated śake 836 it is stated that the king restored four hundred villages that had been confiscated by former kings (E. I. vol. IX. p. 24 at p. 33 'pūrvapṛthvīpālaviluptāni); in the Talmanchi plates of Cālukya Vikramāditya I (dated 660 A. D.) there is a recital that 'he re-established the endowments of temples and brāhmaṇas that had been lost in the three kingdoms' (E. I. vol. IX. p. 100). The Rājataraṅgiṇī (V. 166-170) states that king Śaṁkaravarman (in the first half of the 10th century), the son of Avantivarman, deprived temples of all their properties for replenishing his treasury emptied by his vices.²⁰²⁶ Parāśara (XII. 51) says that the sin of resuming land already donated cannot be expiated even by performing a hundred Vājapeya sacrifices or by the gift of millions of cows. In the Khoh plates of Parivrājaka Mahārāja Saṁkṣobha (Gupta Inscriptions No. 25 p. 115) dated Gupta *saṁvat* 209 (528-529 A.
v3.c43.87.3
D.) there is a peculiar curse pronounced on him who would interfere with his gift 'him who would interfere with this gift I shall, though functioning in another body (on account of rebirth), consume (burn) with terrible curses (or imprecatory thoughts)'. Vide also Gupta Ins. No. 23 p. 107 of G. S. 191. When a grant of a village or villages was made kings excepted therefrom grants already made in favour of shrines of gods and brāhmaṇas. For example, in the Pikira Grant of Siṁhavarman (E. I. VIII. p. 162) it is stated 'this village is granted by us as a gift to brāhmaṇas excepting the cultivated lands given as endowment to gods' (devabhogahalavarjam). In E. I. vol. X. p. 88 (of 697 śake) the grant excludes 'the portion already bestowed on gods and brāhmaṇas' (pūrvapratta-deva-brahma-dāya-rahitaḥ). The grant of the village by the Caṇḍella king Paramardideva in saṁ. 1236 expressly excludes five halas (land measure) of land granted to Buddha (i. e. to a temple of Buddha then existing). Vide E. I. XX. at p. 129. This shows that a Hindu king respected an endowment already made to a shrine of Buddha or to a monastery of Buddhists (devaśrī-buddha-satka-pañcahalam bahiṣkṛtya ). Vide also I. H. Q. vol. VIII for 1932 p. 305 ( plates of Bhoja dated *saṁ.* 1079 where the expression ‘deva-brāhmaṇa-bhuktivarjam’ occurs ); E. I. vol. II p. 360 (*saṁ* 1162 ); E. I. 14, p. 194 (*saṁ.* 1150); E. I. vol. I, p. 85 at p. 88 (G. S. 334).
v3.c43.87.4
There are many instances where kings making grants of a field say that they purchased it from the owner and then bestowed it. For example, in E. I. vol. 17 p. 345 there is a grant by Kumāragupta (G. S. 193) of this character and see p. 856 above where such a grant is referred to. Even in the most ancient grants what is granted is set out with great particularity. A few examples will show this. In the Nasik Inscription No. 3 of Vāsiṭhīputa²⁰²⁷ Siri-Puḷumāyi (E. I. vol. 8 p. 65) the grant is in these words ‘And to this village of Sāmalipada (Śālmalipadra) we grant the immunity belonging to monk's land, making it not to be entered by royal officers, not to be touched (by any of them), not to be dug for salt, not to be interfered with by the district police, (in short) to enjoy all kinds of immunities’. So also the Mayidavolu plates²⁰²⁸ of the Pallava Śivaskandavarman state (E. I. vol. VI, p. 87) ‘to this village of Viripara we grant all the immunities enjoyed by the *brahmadeyas*. Let it be free from digging for salt, free from being interfered with by the district police (or officers), free from supply of bullocks in succession, free from the entrance of soldiers, free from supply of boiled rice, water pots, cots and lodgings, with these and all other immunities prescribed (by rules) regarding all *brahmadeyas*, we have caused it to be exempted’. In the Gupta Inscriptions No. 55, p.
v3.c43.87.5
235 (the Chammak copperplate of Pravarasena II)²⁰²⁹ there are numerous words about the various taxes and exactions remitted which it is difficult to understand at this distance of time, but some of which may be stated ‘it was to be free from taxes, not to be entered by the regular soldiers, nor by *cāṭas*, it was to be entirely free from all obligations of forced labour, it was to carry with it hidden treasure and all deposits.’