365bet娱乐

Observation : As is already pointed out, forts and fortifications are an ancient art which has elicited favours from the rulers and kings in India and elsewhere from quite early times. The cause of the growing importance of forts seems to have stemmed from a practical necessity more than the customs and traditions in those times when bows, arrows, swords etc. were the principal weapons in a war. Pancatantra, and Sukraniti and Sukraniti clearly, mention this, when these texts unmistakably hold that one soldier with arms

542 can successfully fight with a hundred, when under the 42 protection of a rampart. With such a popular tradition f finding patronage in the royal hierarchy, forts started playing quite an important role in the political life of the country. This becomes evident by the frequent and copious references to forts we get at the hand of writers and poets of the olden days. Thus, the Epics, Smrtis, Puranas, and even some inscriptions do not lag behind in glorifying forts as prized possessions of the ruling class. This is besides the elaborate treatment, the topic enjoys in treatises on politics and architecture. Thus, in view of the vast material we have on hand, we propose to take in-to account the allied informations given by the representative theoritical and architectural treatises only while making a comparative resume of these informations with those of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika Most of the treatises refer to the rampart walls that surround a fort. Visvakarmavastusastra mentions five walls surrounding an Ekananadurga and kurmadurga while it prescribes as many as twelve enclosures for a Prabhudurga (10.27). A fort is made approachable with a flight of steps which lead to the 42. Pancatantram (1.252), N (4.6.20-21).

543 main citadel but the entrance and exit of a fort should be hidden from the common view. There is of course unanimity of opinion among many authorities regarding different machines (Yantras) that are fitted to the walls of a fort in hidden niches. Visvakarmavastusastra (10.46). Narada silpasastra while describing a yuddhadurga narrates four types of yantras that are to be kept hidden in the prakara. These are the nalika and yantras of trutana, bhedana and vidarana, Mayamata is of the opinion that rampart should lie nine feet below the ground while projecting out eighteen feet and with provision for movement of guards while Agastyavastusastra favours famparts as high as 60 cubits. Visvakarmaprakasa enlists ten types of walls for enclosure and Jayaprccha goes to the extent of enumerating sattrimsa (thirtysix) prakaras. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika seems to toe the line of the predecessors in certain respects but modestly prescribes ramparts of (10 X 3) cubits which are built with stone and topped with minarets and with holes shaped after the fig-leaves. We have seen that ferocious yantras like Bhairava, Naga etc. are fixed to these at navel-high level. (34. 14-19). This description appears to agree with the medium rampart of Samaranganasutradhara (10.27) and the mention of motiffs of vidyadhari etc. tallies with that of Aparajitaprccha (72.14) yodhavidyadhari etc.

544 It may be mentioned here that the author of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika is not merely goaded by a sense of practical necessity in prescribing the carving out of holes in the minabets of the ramparts to hide the warriors and store the weapons etc. But his aesthetic sensibility too marche hand in hand, when he says that these holes are also meant to beautify the ramparts, (Salasobhartham) (34.15). Just as the texts like Kadambari-dil., Visvakarmavastusastra, Arthasastra do, Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika also engages itself (in 36 patala) to describe various doors that are fitted to the gates and sub-gates of a fort, Uttama Madhyama pierced at different cardinal points. The and the Adhama gates which are so called according to their dimension, are said to have further, three types of S stones, the Pun, Stri and Napunsaka, which probably constitutes the lintel, is found to be a special feature recorded by Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika only. belong to The decorations of a door appears to a very old tradition in India. A plain door without auspicious designs is considered inauspicious. Keeping with the tradition in this matter as setbut in Brhatsamhita, Matsyapurana and Samaranganasutradhara etc. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika also records such decorations of a door (mukhabhadra). The lion-motiffs, auspicious

545 43 in a posture of bearing the load of the gopuram and the doors fashioned after a leopard's mouth add positive beauty to the doors described by Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika Further we learn that the four major doors (gates) respectively carry the images of Vighnaraja, Bhairava, Bhadrakali and Hanumat. Added to these big four, many small doors are opened but without the design of the leopard's face. Each door is two-fold and covered with sheets of iron and reinforced with protruding iron-pegs and strong bolts. The outer doors which open near the moat are said to have suspended bridge-like devices that are employed in crossing the moats. Such are the eight doors of a fort according to Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika Coming to the Salas (halls) near the rampart, Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika prescribes eight such halls to be constructed, namely, the bhadra etc. (34.4) for king's use during war. Mayamata and Visvakarmavastusastra favour twelve such salas for a yuddhadurga or six (saladvada sakavrta) and five for a Kurmadurga ^ 33 etc. (Pancasaissalakaih) Visvakarmavastusastra (10.42). But about the location /n of the royal citadel in a fort Visvakarmavastusastra seems to agree with Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika 43. This appears to be quite popular in our tradition. Vastumandana and Vastumaniari fully corroborate this view when these opine, 'ganeso dhanado laksmih puradvare sukhavahah Vastumandana (3.30) and 'dvare dvare dhanadhisan ganesam cet srivam nyaset' Vastumaniari (16.17)

546 that it should be situated at a central place, 44 surrounded by other buildings. Also, a sort of agreement is observed regarding the buildings facing the roads and the lanes and carrying the auspicious designs like mukhabhadraha. 45 But still it favour in respect be taken amla Most of these treatises agree that various articles and weapons to be kept in store in a fort constitute the daily provisions and bows, arrows, swoards. is observed that some authors weigh their of a particular article. As an example may (tamarind) which is mentioned by our author whereas Visvakarmavastusastra and others, overlook it. Manasa, (6.550-555) contains such a list which includes molasses (guda) alongwith oil, ghee, honey etc. and instructs snakes to be kept in jugs (kumbha) and ferocious animals like tigers and lions in suitable cages. Arthasastra (2.4.40-42) suggests weapons to be stored in kulvas (canals), specially dug for the purpose. Thus, it appears that these authors mostly enclose a traditional list of such materials, nevertheless, sometimes, not without the local variations which prompt an author to include an article while overlooking others. 44. Cp. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika (34.3) with Visvakarmavastusastra (10.46) 45. Cp. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika (36.7) with Visvakarmavastusastra (10.44).

547 One more thing which does not occupy onn author is the women-folk about whom elaborate instructions are found in other texts. Jayaprecha (Prakaralaksanam. 54) describes to be 'replete with beautiful ladies' such puras (lalanapuritairpuraih) while Yuktikalpataru (17.136) informs us about a generally accepted norm in the matter that treasury and the laides should be kept in secret places (gupte/strIkosa sambharam..). Forts vis-a-vis palaces : So far what we have seen appears to be the description of a fortified palace. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika seems to favour the idea of a fort which is big enough to contain a whole royal establishment, the palace, market, mansions of the elite, well-laid-out streets, et all. But sometimes we find that a fort is prohibited to be converted to a town (janapada) for security reasons. vvs clearly embodys such a tradition and holds a fort to be maintained in the through exclusiveness of a seat for the Army. 46 46. Visvakarmavastusastra (10.1) durganam sthapanam pravo, bhupanamatmaraksakam / tasmat silpiganaih karyam na tatra nagaradikam "

548 Treatises like NJC, pp. 173-187, Samarasara, pp. 93-109, Sivatattvaratnakara 7. 14-101 indicate that in India a science had developed to acquaint the invading king with the success or failure of a particular seige of a fort on the basis of a contrivance of astrological counting known as Kotacakra. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika however is found to be silent on this topic. 47 Lastly, we may add that the Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika description of forts appears to deal with not merely a fort but a town within a fort, though in small proportions. We, moreover, are reminded to see in it a picture of forts and fortification 48 contiguous to that of the 16-17 century A.D. India. The description of the royal palace surrounded by lofty mansions of kinsmen, Officers, servants, the market description with all commodities laid out in respective places, the reserved arenas for the four-fold class, the ditches, ramparts under vigilant surveilance of the guards - all these clearly conjure of the picture of a prosperous township, well-fortified up with battlemented towers, moats and ramparts like the city of 49 Pataliputra as witnessed by Megasthenes , Rajagrha as described by Mahabharata (2.18.30, 2.19.2 ff.) or to take a laterday example, the city of Vijayanagar as witnessed by Paes and Nuniz. 50 47. For details and diagram etc. of the Kotacakra see Sivatattvaratnakara (7.14-101), NJC, Samarasara etc. 48. 49. 50. Cf. V.S.Bendre, Gadakotadurga (Marathi) p.40 Fragmenta XXV.. quoted by Amita Ray, Villages, towns Megasthenes 0 Vasundhara Filliozat, Ed. The Vijayanagar Empire, Delhi. 64. 1977, p.26.