correct.

The inscription is a posthumous eulogy in verse

of a powerful sovereign named Candra, concerning whose lineage no information is given, and may be translated as follows:

TRANSLATION

"This lofty standard of the divine Vishnu was erected on Mount Visnupada by King Candra, whose thoughts were devoted in faith to Visnu. The beauty of that King's countenance was as that of the full moon (candra) ;—by him, with his own arm, sole world-wide dominion was acquired and long held;-and although, as if wearied, he has in bodily form quitted this earth, and passed to the other-world country won by his merit, yet, like the embers of a quenched fire in a great forest, the glow of his foedestroying energy quits not the earth;-by the breezes of his prowess the southern ocean is still perfumed;—by him, having crossed the seven mouths of the Indus, were the Vahlikas vanquished in battle;-and when warring in the Vanga countries, he breasted and destroyed the enemies confederate against him, fame was inscribed on (their) arm by his sword."

The facts recorded are, that the pillar was erected in honour of Visnu on Mount Visnupada (Visnu's foot) by a monarch named Candra, who had long enjoyed world-wide sovereignty, but was deceased at the time when the inscription was engraved, and that this sovereign had defeated

a hostile confederacy in the Vanga countries, and had, after crossing the seven mouths of the Sindhu, or Indus, vanquished the Vahlikas.

The questions whether or not the Iron Pillar occupies its original position, and if not, where that position must be sought, and when the pillar was removed, remain to be considered, and, if possible, answered.

According to local tradition, Delhi was deserted from B. C. 57 until the year 792 of the Vikrama era, equivalent to A. D. 735-6, when a city was founded by a prince of the Tomara clan, variously named Ananga Pala (I.) and Bilan De. Abul Fazl, in his summary, gives the date as 429 of the era of Vikrama, which, if corrected to the Gupta era, is equivalent to A. D. 747; and an inscription on the Iron Pillar itself is said to state the date as 419, which, interpreted in the same way, is equivalent to A. D. 737. The popular belief is that this Ananga Pala I. set up the Iron Pillar where it now stands. But the popular belief takes no account of the inscription of Candra, the date of which has been ascertained to be approximately A. D. 415, and the pillar was certainly actually erected only a short time before that date. It is, therefore, more than three centuries older than the period assumed by tradition for Ananga Pala I. I confess I have the greatest doubts as to the reality of the existence of this personage.

The reasonable inference from the known facts seems to be that when Ananga Pala, in A. D. 1052–3, recorded on the Iron Pillar his foundation of the city, he himself set up

the pillar, and that the homonymous ancestor, with whom so many foolish legends are sometimes associated, is as fictitious as the legends. Chand's version, which associates the foolish legends with Ananga Pala II., is more reasonable, if the epithet reasonable may be applied to fiction. It is extremely improbable that Ananga Pala in the Eleventh Century found the Iron Pillar standing in a waste, and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that any buildings of the Fifth Century, from the beginning of which the pillar certainly dates, ever existed on the spot. From these premises the conclusion necessarily follows that Ananga Pala brought the pillar from somewhere else, and set it up to adorn his new city and to add sanctity to his temple of Vishnu. He acted, in fact, in the same way as kings have acted in all ages. Firoz Shah Tughlaq took immense pains to move Asoka's monoliths from Meerut and Topra to Delhi and from Kausambi to Prayag, just as long afterwards Napoleon and other princes have thought no trouble too great to obtain possession of Egyptian obelisks for the decoration of their capitals.

The manner in which the Iron Pillar is fixed into the pavement is not, as Dr. Fleet fancied, an argument against the theory of the removal, but a strong argument in its support. The pavement, as has been proved above, is the Eleventh Century pavement laid down by Ananga Pala, and covered over by a layer of rubbish due to Qutb-ud-din. Into the surface layer of that pavement the Iron Pillar is clamped by an iron grating secured with lead solder. The

.

pavement certainly does not, like the pillar, date from the Fifth Century. It seems obviously to be the flooring of the great mediæval group of temples destroyed by the Mussulmans. These iconoclasts were eager to overthrow the superstructure of the idol-covered temples, but had no motive for interfering with the massive flagged pavement resting on well-tried foundations of unknown depth. There is no reason to suppose that the pillar was ever disturbed since it was set up in that pavement, and it seems to my mind evident that it was set up at the time when the pavement was laid down.

To sum up, my conclusions are :

I. The tradition that Delhi (that is to say, a city near the Qutb Minar) was founded, or refounded, by Ananga Pala I. in or about A. D. 736, is untrustworthy, and not supported by evidence. It is probable that Ananga Pala I. is a myth.

2. Delhi (in the sense stated above) was certainly founded, or refounded, by a prince named Ananga Pala in A. D. 1052-3, who then constructed a group of temples. The floor of the platform of that, group still exists as the floor of the Qutb mosque and courtyard. The Iron Pillar is clamped into that floor, and was set up when the floor was laid down.

3. The Iron Pillar was moved from its original site by Ananga Pala in or about A. D. 1050.

4. The original site of the pillar was at or near Mathura, on the top of a hill or mound known as Visnupada.

5. The pillar is a solid mass of pure malleable iron weighing over six tons, not cast, but constructed by a welding process.

6. It was originally surmounted by a statue, which was probably removed by the Muhammadans.

7. It was set up by Candra Gupta II., at the close of his reign, in honour of his favourite divinity Visnu.

8. Candra Gupta having died before the inscription could be prepared, the pillar was inscribed by order of his son and successor, Kumara Gupta I. in or about the year A. D. 415.

9. The inscription establishes the historical facts that Candra Gupta II. enjoyed a very long reign, and that he waged successful wars against a confederacy in Lower Bengal, and against the Vahlikas, west of the Indus.