Bringing Sanskrit literature to a wider global audience
स्त्रीणां विहाय वदनेषु शशाङ्कलष्मीं
काम्यं च हंसवचनं मणिनूपुरेषु
बन्धूककान्तिमधरेषु मनोहरेषु
क्वापि प्रयाति सुभगा शरदागमश्रीः
Leaving the splendour of the moon in women’s faces,
The irresistable call of the swan in their jewelled anklets
And the beauty of the bandhuka tree in their entrancing lower lips
Autumn’s beautiful radiance passes elsewhere.
Verse 25, third sarga, Ritusamhara – Kalidasa
Common Features of a King as Depicted in Sanskrit Inscriptions
Reverend Upali Sramon
University of Peradeniya
1. Introduction
Sanskrit inscriptions are regarded as the most reliable sources of information for certifying historical facts. However, unlike ‘poetry’ and other forms of literature it is difficult to formulate an all-encompassing theory for inscriptions because there are very few characteristics that can be generalised. Even the most prominent feature of literary composition ‘invocation’ is not strictly followed by many authors of inscriptions. Unlike the present day declarations and announcements, there is no strict rule as to how the beginning, body or ending of an inscription should be. They can be either metrical language, in prose or even mixed. Most of these inscriptions were sponsored by kings and engraved by professional authors who had a good command of language. Some authors do not mention their names in the inscriptions. The fact that they were loyal to the king is obvious from the high praise of their kings. Despite such divergences, the most common features of inscriptions can at least be noted. Most inscriptions discovered to date were inscribed in rocks, stones, pillars or plates; they were made for various purposes.
The intention behind the construction of an inscription was certainly to make a record of something special. Emperor Aśoka had a slightly different objective. More than making a record, he wanted to publish the precious doctrines of the Buddha for moral improvement of his citizens. In this essay I notice some common features of ancient kings as depicted in Sanskrit inscriptions. This will help to understand how kings were looked at and described by inscribers/authors of inscriptions, the objectives and major concerns of ancient Indian kings, their attitudes to religions and their interactions with the populus.
2. Kings in Inscriptions[1]
In some inscriptions the physical appearance of kings has been described in detail. In Meharauli Posthumous Inscription of King Chandra, it is said, the king was given the name because his appearance and physical beauty resemble the fully illuminated moon [samagracandrasadṛśīṃ vaktraśriyaṃ]. King Samudragupta was a great warrior and fought many battles. The wounds in his body do not detract from his beauty. In fact the king is described as “looked more charming because of the severe wounds received from various weapons like the battle-axes, arrows…”[2] King Yasodharman was a mighty and glorious king “the circumference of whose arms is as firm and charming as that of pillars…”.[3] As to the personal life of a king, his relationship with the family members, daily activities, personal tastes and so on, there is scant information.
The technical religious terms, such as ‘colour discrimination’ [varṇabheda], are not generally used in inscriptions. But, the rulers who maintained peace during their reigns are generally seen as virtuous. Thus, social inequality does not seem to have been encouraged by kings. Yet, there is also no mention of discouraging the discriminatory social stratifications established by religion [Brahmanism]. The reason may be that the kings respected the Brahmins as beacons of sacredness and did not want to interfere with their long-cherished ideals.
From most of the inscriptions beginning with invocation or prayer the religious beliefs of the king are clear. When the author is invoking Viṣṇu, for example, we can infer that it the king and the people of that period were adherents of this god. When we observe inscriptions of different kings of the same lineage invoking different gods, we can chart the changing course of religious belief too. From the Valabhī Copper plate inscription of king Dharasena II we learn of the glorious achievements of his ancestors. But, in contrast to his fore-fathers some of whom worshipped Maheśvara, and others different gods, King Dharasena made a grant to the Buddhist monk Sthiramati.
In some inscriptions three of four aims of life [dharma, artha, kāma, excluding the fourth mokṣa], are said to have been achieved by the kings. King Skandagupta, for example, is described as “endowed with the highest sentiments of piety, affable, pure, (and) charitable in a proper way, he was without any hindrance to attaining dharma and artha (i.e. spiritual good and economic pursuits) applied himself to such pleasures (i.e. attaining kāma) as can be obtained at the proper time.” King Rudradāman is also described as having attained these three aims. It appears clear from this that Indian kings were always attached to the promotion of economic and spiritual aims. They also reserved time and means for enjoyments. But, there is almost no inscription of kings who renounced the world to achieve ‘liberation’ [mokṣa].
Most of the inscriptions show that most kings were in one way or another inclined to religion – some truly out of devotion but some for political achievement [to win the favour of the general public]. King Iśānavarman built a temple of Siva. King Polakeśi used to perform sacrifices such as Agnisthoma, Agnicaya, Vājapeya, Bahusuvarna, and Puṇḍarika. After his victory over the Kadamabas he held sacrifices. King Kīrtivarman’s brother Maṅgaleśa built beautiful temples.[4] King Aparājita’s wife built a temple for Viṣṇu.
Engravers of inscriptions are generally concerned about the forefathers of their sponsor kings. Even though they are not intending to write a chronology they tend to list the names of the great kings of that lineage and their achievements. Such information is a great boon to Indian historians and students of Indology. Some kings claimed to be related to some other prominent kings or legendary figures. Most kings, as inscriptions show, were conquerors of prominent colonies. In some inscriptions the places a king conquered are not mentioned, yet his valour and ability to vanquish enemies is eulogised.
One of a king’s major concerns was to have a good reputation among his citizens. Some inscriptions show how some kings were dedicated to serving the people. Skandagupta’s relationship with the general people is explained thus: “…he made his subjects happy first by conversation accompanied by a smile and presents of honours by (encouraging) unrestricted mutual visits to each others’ houses among his people (and) by holding domestic functions calculated to promote cordiality.”[5] On the basis of the fact that the Gupta period was the most peaceful period in Indian history, these remarks do not seem to be exaggerations. Many other kings are said to have cherished such an amiable relationship with their citizens. They would look after the needs of the people. King Dakṣa built a well for common use of citizens, and Rudradàman repaired the historical lake Sudarśana to meet agricultural requirements.
The inscriptions show the prevalence of the system of conferring titles to a king for his valorous performance in wars or for some special virtues. These titles were given by the common people, the king’s associates or the royal community. King Rudradāman, originally a kṣatrapa, was given the title ‘Mahākṣatrapa’. King Polakeśi was recognized as ‘satyāśraya’ [inclined to the truth] for his virtues. Later the title became synonymous with the king’s name.
The literary figure prominent in inscriptions is ‘exaggeration’ [atiśayokti]. In the Meharauli posthumous pillar inscription of King Chandra the ostensible purpose of the inscription is to announce that the king built a pillar to declare his victory over Vaṅga. This fact is said only in the last line of the poem of six lines. A long eulogy with elegant adjectives precedes the central expression. Yet, the inscription does not identify the king for certain. This has given rise to vicious debate which has still not reached a conclusion. In this instance, however, the engraver was not just aiming to convey the explicit message.
In king Rudradāman’s inscription of Girnar, for example, the ostensible statement is that the lake Sudarśana was once destroyed by an incessant downpour of rain and that it was repaired by Rudradāman. This fact is conveyed using so many descriptive expressions for the king, the rain, the lake that it makes reading it a long drawn-out affair. In this fairly long inscription there are only two clear verbs. Sandhi has been applied in every possible place. Such inscriptions form a distinct kind of literature in the vast and diverse forms of Sanskrit literary exercise.
King Rudradāman’s mastery over various types of arts, literature, music, besides his being a brave warrior, seem exaggerated. Many other kings are also similarly eulogised. However, the fact that Sanskrit kāvya literature flourished in courts fits with the fact that Indian kings generally loved poetry and generously sponsored the development of literary creations.
It is natural that, as we can see in most inscriptions, the victory is celebrated. A king who risks his life fighting to prove his courage and skill and to win colonies certainly wants his heroic act to be expressed in language. The writers are generally successful in meeting this expectation of their kings. Hence, we see that most inscriptions are of victorious kings. There is no inscription of a king who was defeated. Another important feature is that many Sanskrit inscriptions praise the kings highly but make no mention of the date. They might not have thought of the historical importance of the inscriptions.
Most of the kings, as depicted in inscriptions, had different interests and different ways of governing people. Several inscriptions [and names] of Gupta kings are associated with Sudarśana lake in Girnār. This must have been because of the agricultural importance of the lake. The lake, as the name indicates, might have maintained a beautiful view of the place to attract people. The inscription shows some aesthetic sentiments of the author, the king, and the people. Girnār inscription of King Skandhagupta shows that the king had a great care in appointing capable generals to rule his colonies. This characteristic is not obvious in other inscriptions.
3. Conclusion
From the above discussion the characteristics shared by most kings as depicted in famous Sanskrit inscriptions could be enumerated as follows:
inscriptions tend to include:
Beside these common features, the inscriptions have other significant particularities considering their literary and linguistic values. There are many other inscriptions, [for example, religious inscriptions], some established by kings, and some not. They differ from these in purpose and content.
****************************
Bibliography
[2] Allahabad Stone Pillar Inscription of King Samudragupta, pp. 23-43
[3] Mandasore Stone Pillar Inscription of Yasodharman, v.7, p. 79,
[4] Diskalkar, p. 131
[5] Diskalkar, p. 60
A review of The Modernity of Sanskrit by Simona Sawhney, Permanent Black, Ranikhet 2009, Pp. 213, Rs.495
by A.N.D. Haksar
Besides a means of thought and communication, language can be many things. A repository of history and a vehicle of culture. A tool of scientific inquiry and a field for literary creativity. A medium of governance and scholarly discourse and a hallmark of power and class.
Sanskrit has been all these in the course of the last three thousand years. It was also the language of religious ritual and speculation. This, probably its earliest role, has persisted with some changes to modern times while the other roles faded, mutated or were taken over by other languages.
These changes in an ancient civilization’s principal language provide important areas for academic research and better understanding today. The present work is a welcome contribution in this direction. It is also a pointer to how such research is increasingly taking place outside the homeland of Sanskrit. The author is Associate Professor of South Asian Literature at an American university.
“The book is written”, Professor Sawhney says in her introduction, “as a way of asking how we might read Sanskrit texts today”. Curiously, they “appear to us at once as testaments from a world that has disappeared and as our own contemporaries”. For, they have a “deep engagement with Indian cultural modernity”.
Sawhney refers to the modernity of Sanskrit in three perspectives. First, as a contributor to thinking on literary, political and cultural modernity in India. Second, as reflecting the dynamic of political and cultural change in its own literature. And third, as needing to be seen with a “modernity in which it is neither neglected or revered”.
Her suggestion for this is a literary approach to Sanskrit texts. This “might lead us to perceive them neither as antiquarian pieces of archival interest nor the testaments and guards of a severely hierarchical community, but rather as texts whose import and significance always leaves something to be determined”. In other words, presumably, to be reinterpreted continually.
Apart from her literary focus, Sawhney also strikes a political note. There has been a cultural shift in India, she says. “A significant feature of this shift has been the almost total appropriation of the Sanskrit tradition by the Hindu right”. For many Indians, to learn the language now is also “to imbibe the language of a modern ideology”. Thus “a divisive political agenda, formulated on the basis of a religio-nationalist identity, precedes the reading of texts”. The result is that “those who do not subscribe to that ideology often see no reason to study the language either, so strongly has it become associated with cultural conservatism”. This “stamp of orthodoxy”, she opines, “makes Sanskrit a kind of metaphor for institutional violence and the preservation of hierarchy”.
This somewhat sweeping approach, notably highlighted in the book’s blurbs, may attract an audience more interested in polemics than the language itself. But, to carry conviction, it also needs mention of the purvapaksha, that is the other side, in such a discussion on the politics of Sanskrit. This is missing, as are some other relevant points. For example, while the author dwells on the exchanges between Gandhi and Ambedkar on caste and reservation, she omits any notice of Ambedkar’s proposal in the Constituent Assembly to make Sanskrit the official language of the Indian Union. Nor does she note the rich tribute to Sanskrit paid by Nehru, the acclaimed symbol of India’s modernity.
It is the literary focus, however, which valorises this work. There is an erudite and sensitive examination of Sanskrit’s impact on parts of modern Indian literature, particularly Hindi drama. The case studies of Kalidasa, Ashvaghosha and Mohan Rakesh, and of the Mahabharata and Dharmavir Baharati, throw fresh light on the ancient authors and works as well as the modern dramatists. Particularly insightful is the discussion of poetry, drawing on modern writers like Hazariprasad Dvivedi, Jaishankar Prasad and Buddhadeva Bose and the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana from 9th century Kashmir.
“If we read Sanskrit texts today, we have to do so with the sense that they are not entombed in a dead age but that they can, in some way, break through to our world”, the author concludes. It is a conclusion which endorses the timelessness of all great literature.
A.N.D. Haksar translates Sanskrit texts for several publishers including Penguin; his latest book is The Courtesan’s Keeper (Rupa, Delhi, 2008), the first English rendition of Samaya Matrika, a satire from 11th century Kashmir – see here for more details.
The Modernity of Sanskrit was published last year in the US by the University of Minnesota, and was released earlier this year in its South Asian edition by Permanent Black. More on the US edition here, and on the South Asian edition here.
