Reviews
Summary
The third volume of *Jain Inscriptions, Jaisalmer*, compiled by Puran Chand Nahar, adds 2592 inscriptions to the series, totaling nearly three thousand records. Published in 1929, it focuses on Jaisalmer, a significant Jain stronghold, with inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Hindi covering diverse subjects rarely found in epigraphic records. While valuable for linguistic, social, and religious scholarship, the work lacks explanatory notes for terms unclear to non-specialists, and some errors persist, such as misreadings from plates (e.g., No. 2531) and uncorrected engraver mistakes (e.g., "ન: મૈપામ્" instead of "WA"). Critics note Nahar’s failure to address prior critiques, including discrepancies in deciphering, though he attributes some errors to proofreaders. Despite these flaws, the work is acknowledged as a significant contribution, particularly given Nahar’s blindness during its completion. The *Chintaharan Chakravarti Inscriptions of Bengal* (Vol. III), edited by Nanigopal Majumdar (1929), compiles 119 inscriptions from the Candras, Varmanas, and Isvara-gharasa periods, continuing the Varendra Research Society’s series. Majumdar rigorously cross-checked readings against original plates and corrected prior errors, while providing detailed notes and a glossary of official titles. However, some inaccuracies remain, such as the incorrect attribution of Vijayapura’s mention in Dhoyi’s text and overinterpretations (e.g., equating *draméha* with *dlaméka*). The work consolid
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This comprehensive review highlights two significant epigraphic collections—Jain inscriptions from Jaisalmer and Chintaharan Chakravarti inscriptions of Bengal—showcasing their distinct contributions and limitations. Puran Chand Nahar’s compilation of nearly three thousand Jain inscriptions provides valuable linguistic, social, and religious data but lacks explanatory notes for non-specialists. Despite editorial inconsistencies, the work remains a monumental achievement, especially given the author’s visual impairment. Meanwhile, Nanigopal Majumdar’s meticulously edited Bengal inscriptions offer post-Gupta records in an accessible format, correcting prior errors and including a glossary of titles. While both works are praised for their scholarly rigor and accessibility, they cater to specialized audiences, with Nahar’s Hindi-focused approach and Majumdar’s shift to English notes enhancing broader utility. These collections underscore the importance of epigraphy in understanding regional histories and cultural dynamics, serving as critical resources for scholars despite their unique limitations.