Nalanda Stone Inscription of Yasovarmadeva
By Ramesh Chandra Majumdar
Summary
The Nalanda Stone Inscription of Yasovarmadeva centers on a scholarly debate over its attribution, with the author defending their original contention that it belongs to Yasovarmadeva rather than Yadodharman, as proposed by Dr. H. Sastri and supported by Mr. M. H. Mrityunjayan. The author argues that the inscription’s script and the name "Yasovarmadeva" align with evidence from contemporary records, emphasizing palmographic analysis of all test letters rather than selective ones. They critique Mr. Mozumdar’s reliance on distant manuscripts and stress the importance of comparing local inscriptions for accurate script dating. The author also challenges Dr. Sastri’s translation of verse 14, asserting it misrepresents the inscription’s reference to a Buddha image erected by Baladitya, not a royal command. Additionally, the text addresses a separate discussion involving Mr. R. B. Trivedi, who questioned the identification of the Natyasastra authors, Kreddva, and Silalin, with the author clarifying potential misunderstandings in Trivedi’s interpretation. The discussion underscores methodological disagreements in epigraphy and textual analysis, highlighting the complexity of attributing historical inscriptions accurately.
Conclusion
The Nalanda Stone Inscription of Yasovarmadeva presents a critical paleographic and epigraphic analysis, reinforcing the attribution of the inscription to Yasovarman over Yadodharman. The author defends their methodology, emphasizing the significance of script comparison with contemporary records and rejecting reliance on uncertain manuscript evidence. Key implications include the validation of Yasovarman’s reign as the contextual backdrop for the inscription and the dismissal of earlier critiques challenging this attribution. The study underscores the importance of rigorous paleographic scrutiny in resolving historical disputes and clarifies the limitations of Dr. Sastri’s translation of verse 14, which risks misinterpretation by conflating royal actions with religious symbolism. This contribution advances the understanding of Gupta-era inscriptions, highlighting the need for methodologically sound approaches in deciphering historical records.