Published in The Journal of the Greater Indian Society, vol. VI No. 2, 1939, pp.53-55.
The famous Vo-chanh Rock inscription was edited by Bergaigne [1] and commented upon by Finot. [2] It has been re-edited by Dr. R.C. Majumdar in his Champa. [3] It has been pointed out that several lines at the beginning of the record are lost; that the inscription, composed in Sanskrit, may be referred, on paleographic grounds, to the second or third century A.D.; and that there are two verses in Vasantatilaka meter in the record the rest of which is in prose. [4]
It seems to me that paleography has misled scholars in determining the date of the Vo-chanh inscription. The language, style and the meter used in the record prove, in my opinion, that the inscription is later-at least not earlier than the fourth century A.D.
It is known to all students of Indian epigraphy that almost all Indian records (both of kings and private persons), earlier than the first century A.D., are written in Prakrit. Sanskrit was not in general use even in the second century A.D. This century, however, offers us a number of inscriptions written in Prakrit mixed with Sanskrit record of Rudradaman (c. 130-150 A.D.) which points to the victory of Sanskrit over the inscriptional Prakrit in some quarters of western and north-western India. Generally speaking, Sanskrit began to gradually oust Prakrit from the field of epigraphy in that part of India about the second century A.D.; but the victory was not complete before the fourth century. Prakrit lost the field in South Indian epigraphy only about the middle of the fourth century A.D. These points have been fully discussed in my paper, Inscriptional Evidences relating to the Development of Classical Sanskrit. [5]
Now, which part of India was responsible for introducing the fashion of composing records in an Indian language in Far Eastern countries like Campa? Even if we believe that the colonists belonged to the western and north-western parts of India, we must admit that the Vochanh inscription is considerably later than the middle of the second century A.D., because its diction cannot be compared with any Indian inscription in Sanskrit earlier than the Junagadh inscription (150 A.D.) of Rudradaman. If the colonists belonged to Eastern India, the date of our record should be later, as there is no proof that Sanskrit became popular in that part of the country before the rise of the Guptas (320 A.D.). If, however, it is believed that the colonists went from near the mouths of the Krishna and the Godavari, the Vo-chanh record can hardly be earlier than the closing years of the fourth century A.D., because Prakrit was the language of inscriptions in that part of India as late as the middle of the fourth century. [6]
Again, when were classical meters, like Vasantatilaka, extensively used in Indian epigraphs? Inscriptions prove that such meters were certainly not popular or in general use in India before the rise of the Guptas. [7] The Vo-chanh inscription which contains at least two verses in Vasantatilaka metre, can therefore be hardly assigned to a period earlier than first half of the fourth century A.D. It may be later; but certainly not much earlier.
Footnotes:
[1] Notices et Extraits de Manuscripts de la Bibliotheque Nationale, etc., tome 27, iere partie fascicule 2e, N. 20, p. 191.
[2] B.E.F.E.O., XV, No. 2, p. 3.
[3] R.C. Majumdar, Anc. Ind. Colonies in the Far East, I, Lahore, 1927, Book III, pp. I.ff.
[4] Ibid., p. 1.
[5] I.H.Q., December 1938.
[6] D.C. Sircar, Successions of the Satavabanas in Lower Deccan, Calcutta University, 1939, pp. 166 ff. It must be noted that the Cho Dinh Rock inscription which is paleographically assigned to circa 400 A.D. (Majumdar, op. Cit., p. 3) refers to King Bhadravarman as Dharma-maharaja. This is a typical South Indian style (Sircar, op.cit., p. 171 n.) Possibly the Cho Dinh record too should be placed several decades later.
[7] For the date of Patanjali who gives examples of classical metres in the Mahabhasya, see my paper in Ind. Hist. Quart., December, 1938.
Published in The Journal of the Greater Indian Society, vol. VI No. 2, 1939, pp.53-55.