Q1.
Why do you think kings chose to proclaim their achievements in the form of inscriptions?
Answer
Because an inscription does four things at once that no other medium of the time could do.
| What an inscription gives a king | How we can see it in this chapter |
|---|---|
| Permanence | Stone and metal outlast palm-leaf manuscripts, cloth and memory. The Iron Pillar inscription is over 1,600 years old and still readable; Harisena’s prayāga praśhasti (Fig. 7.5) survives while the Gupta court is long gone |
| A public announcement | A pillar stands in a public place where everyone passes — travellers, traders, pilgrims, rival envoys. The message reaches people the king will never meet |
| Legitimacy and warning | The list of kings Samudragupta defeated tells neighbours what happens to those who resist. The chapter says many kings, ‘fearing his might, submitted without protest’ — the inscription itself did part of the fighting |
| A record for the future | Harisena writes not only of wars but of the king’s support for art, learning and trade. The king wanted to be remembered as a complete ruler, not merely a conqueror |
Why it happens: in an age without printing, newspapers or photographs, a king’s fame had to be fixed to something that could not be edited, lost or forgotten. Carving it into stone was the strongest form of ‘publishing’ available — which is why grand titles (mahārājadhirāja, samrāṭ, chakravartin) also appear on inscriptions and coins.
Read like a historian: a praśhasti is written by the king’s own court poet. Harisena was paid to praise. So the inscription is excellent evidence of what the king wanted people to believe, and only fair evidence of what actually happened. Historians corroborate it with coins, other inscriptions and travellers’ accounts before accepting a claim.