Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c16: Chapter VI. Dynastic History of Bengal and Bihar

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. Dynastic History of Bengal and Bihar

v1.c16.2

The connection of the peoples of the alluvial plains of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, with those living lower down in the deltaic regions, which form the greater part of modern Bengal and Bihar, has always been of a more or less intimate character. As early as the later Vedic literature we find the *Prācyas*, 'the dwellers in the east' differentiated from the westerners, who lived in the upper valley of the Ganges and the Jumna. It is not known exactly which tribes were included in this term. It is likely that the Kāśis, Kosalas, Videhas, Magadhas and other eastern tribes known at that time to the Aryans are meant. But the fact that the *Satapatha Brāhmaṇa* refers to their mode of making tombs and disapproves of that custom makes it possible that there were cultural, if not also ethnic, differences between the peoples of the upper and lower Ganges valley. The epic story which makes Aṅga, Vaṅga, Kaliṅga, Puṇḍra, and Sumha the *kṣetraja* sons of the *asura* Bali by his wife Sudeṣṇā through the agency of the Brahman sage Dīrghatamas, seems to indicate at least the popular belief that these peoples formed a compact ethnic group. The physical measurements of the peoples of a large portion of Bengal and Bihar convinced Risley that they were mainly Dravido-Mongolian, with a strain of Indo-Aryan blood, which is more prominent in the west and in the higher groups. In the western half of Bihar the Aryo-Dravidian features predominated, while in the east of Bengal the Mongolian type was more common. This theory has been criticised. But the opponents admit that 'the people of the lower Ganges valley belong to a different Aryan stock from those who composed the Vedic hymns.' Whatever may be the ethnic and cultural affinity of the peoples of Bengal and Bihar, it is certain that the political relationship between them was sufficiently intimate. Thus when we enquire into the history of the different political and geographical divisions of this region, such as Magadha, Videha, Aṅga, Vaṅga, Samataṭa, Puṇḍra, Gauḍa, Rādha Sumha, etc., we find that from the beginning of imperialism in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., excepting periods of political disintegration, they have been generally under the administration of one government. The absorption of Aṅga by Magadha in the reign of Bimbisāra was the first important step in the development which culminated in the establishment of the Nandas as rulers of the Prasii and the Gangaridae. Perhaps earlier still is the epic tradition of the unification of these tracts under Jarāsandha of Magadha and Karṇa of Aṅga. The Mauryas certainly ruled over these regions; and the recent discovery of the Damodarpur plates makes it clear that the Guptas did the same up to the beginning of the 6th century A.D. Again the Pālas of our period, though known to their contemporaries as kings of Vaṅga (*Vaṅgapati*), issued most of their earlier inscriptions from Bihar. It will thus be not improper to group together in one chapter the accounts of the dynasties that ruled over the lower valleys of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra.¹

v1.c16.3

¹ See *Vedic Index*, Vol. II, p. 46; *Mahābhārata*, I, 104; Risley, *Peoples of India*; *Census Report for 1901 by the same*; *IGI*, 1907, pp. 292 ff.; Chanda, *Indo-Aryans*, *CHI*, Vol. I, pp. 40 ff.; *Carmichael Lectures*, Calcutta University, 1918, pp. 42 ff.; *JASB*, 1923, pp. 866 ff.; *EI*, Vol. XV, pp. 113 ff.

v1.c16.4.1

It is now generally agreed that the Gupta empire survived the shock of the Hūṇa invasions and continued up to the beginning of the 6th century A.D. There is evidence to show that at least in the east its disintegration began soon after that time. Thus the absence of the word Gupta, in *Mahārāja-Rājaputra-Deva Bhaṭṭāraka*, the name of the governor in the fifth Damodarpur plate may indicate that he was the son of a local *rājā* of Northern Bengal who in 543 A.D. perhaps acknowledged only a nominal suzerainty of the Gupta sovereigns.¹ The discovery of the Faridpur plates, which are referred to the 6th century A.D. reveals the presence of a line of independent rulers in Southern Bengal,² while the Vappaghoṣavāṭa inscription of Jayanāga³ seems to indicate the presence of another line of independent rulers in Karṇasuvarṇaka in the latter half of the 6th century A.D. Whether they had any connection with the Gupta governors of Northern Bengal referred to above is a question that cannot be answered in the present state of our knowledge. But that there grew up an independent power in Bengal side by side with the decadent Gupta power in Magadha is shown by the references to the clash of the Maukharis and the ‘Gauḍas living on the seashore’ in the Harāhā inscription of Iśānavarman (554 A.D.).⁴ It remained for Saśāṅka to extend the power of the Gauḍas from Kanauj in the west to Ganjam in the south.⁵ But his empire was short-lived.

v1.c16.4.2

Attacked on both flanks by Harṣa and Bhāskaravarman, he appears to have retreated into the hill-tracts of Orissa. The former annexed Magadha, while the latter to judge from the position of his victorious camp at Karṇasuvarṇa, overran North and West Bengal.⁶ During the reign of Harṣa, the rest of Bengal and Bihar appears to have been divided into a number of independent and semi-independent states. These were (1) *I-lan-na-po-fa-to* (Hiraṇyaparvata?, country round the hill of Monghyr), (2) *Chan-p'o* (Campā, Bhagalpur District), (3) *Ka-chu-wên* (?) *k'i-lo* (Kajaṅgala, area round Rajmahal), (4) *Pun-na-fa-tan-na* (Puṇḍra-vardhana, North Bengal to the west of the Karatoya), (5) *San-mo-ta-t‘a* (Samataṭa, Bengal delta between the Hugli and Hill Tippera), (6) *Tan-mo-lih-ti* (Tāmralipti, portions of Midnapore and the 24-Parganas) and (7) *Kie* (*ka*)*-lo-na-su-fa-la-na* (Karṇasuvarṇa, probably portions of Nadia, Burdwan, Birbhum and Murshidabad districts).¹ A critical study of Yuan Chwang's account seems to indicate that though Harṣa sometimes passed through these tracts in the course of his invasions, they did not form a part of his empire.² After the death of Harṣa, the troubled state of the Ganges valley appears to have helped the extension of Tibetan power in the south. The Chinese and Tibetan documents however never tell us whether Tibet actually held Bengal and Bihar;

v1.c16.4.3

and it seems likely that whatever influence Tibet had over these tracts, came to an end about the year 703 A.D., when, according to the T'ang annals, Nepal and India threw off the suzerainty of Tibet.³ During the second half of the 7th century, we have the records of two important lines of princes ruling in Bengal and Bihar. These were the Guptas of Magadha⁴ and the Khaḍgas of Samataṭa.⁵ As the Shahpur image-inscription of Ādityasena gives for him the date A.D. 672-73, and as a Deoghar epigraph preserves the memory of his performing ‘Aśvamedha and other great sacrifices’ and of having ruled ‘the whole earth up to the oceans,’ it is not unlikely that it was this Gupta sovereign who was instrumental in throwing off the yoke of Tibet in 703 A.D. The extent of the rule of these later Guptas is not exactly known. All their inscriptions have been so far discovered in the districts of Gaya, Patna, Bhagalpur and Shahabad of Bihar. But their conflict with the Maukharis of the U. P., their wars on the banks of the Lauhitya, and the possible identification of Mādhavagupta of the Aphsad stone inscription with the Malwa prince Mādhavagupta of Bāṇa's *Harṣacarita*, would indicate a wider extent of power than the distribution of their inscriptions suggests.¹ In this connection it is interesting to note that the *Kumārāmātya* Lokanātha of the recently discovered Tippera grant dated in year 44 (Harṣa era? = A.D.

v1.c16.4.4

650) has been referred to by some scholars as a feudatory of this Gupta prince Ādityasena.² But he was more probably a vassal of the Khaḍgas. The inscriptions of the Khaḍgas have been so far found in the Dacca and Comilla districts in Bengal. The possible identification of Rājabhaṭa,³ king of Samataṭa at the time of Seng-Chi's visit to India (*c.* 650—700 A.D.) with Rājarāja of the Ashrafpur plate (B) and the suggested reading of the date in the same plate as 73 or 79 (=679 or 685 A.D.), which has now been found to be not inconsistent with the palaeographic data of the records, would tend to place these rulers in the periods *c.* 650-700 A.D.⁴ Karmanta, the place of residence of these princes has been identified with modern Kamta near Comilla.

v1.c16.5

¹ *EI*, Vol. XV. p. 142; *The Early History of Bengal*, by Prof. R. C. Majumdar, Dacca University, 1924, pp. 14-15.

v1.c16.6

² *IA*, 1910, Vol. 39, pp. 193-216; *JASB*, August 1910, pp. 429-36; 1911, pp. 289, 308 and 475-502. I think Pargiter has successfully proved that these grants are genuine.

v1.c16.7

³ *EI*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 60-64.

v1.c16.8

⁴ *EI*, Vol. XIV, p. 117, verse 13.

v1.c16.9

⁵ *GI*, pp. 283-84; *EI*, Vol. VI, pp. 143-46; *Harṣacarita* of Bāṇa, Trans. by Cowell and Thomas, pp. 178 ff.; *BR*, Vol. I, pp. 210 ff.; *YC*, Vol. I, pp. 343 ff.

v1.c16.10

⁶ *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 65 ff.; Vol. XIX, pp. 115 ff.; *Harṣacarita* of Bāṇa, Trans. by Cowell and Thomas, pp. 216 ff.

v1.c16.11

¹ *BR*, Vol. II, pp. 186-204; *YC*, Vol. II, pp. 178-93. Watters restores *I-lan-na*, the first part of the name in no. (1), as *Iraṇa* ‘which denotes a piece of wild or barren land.’

v1.c16.12

² *JBORS*, September-December 1923, pp. 3 ff.

v1.c16.13

³ *Journal of the Manchester Oriental Society*, 1911, p. 133.

v1.c16.14

⁴ *GI*, pp. 200-18.

v1.c16.15

⁵ *MASB*, Vol. I, No. 6; *EI*, Vol. XVII, pp. 357-39; *JASB*, 1923, Vol. XIX (N.S.), pp. 375-79; 1914, Vol. X (N. S.), pp. 85-91; *YC*, Vol. II, p. 188; Chavannes, *Les Religieux Éminents*, Paris, 1894, p. 128.

v1.c16.16

¹ *Harṣacarita* of Bāṇa, Trans. by Cowell and Thomas, pp. 119-21 ; *GI*, p. 203 ; *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 100 ff. ; Raychaudhuri, *Political History of Ancient India*, 2nd Ed., 1927, pp. 371 ff.

v1.c16.17

² *EI*, Vol. XV, p. 304.

v1.c16.18

³ *Life*, pp. xxx-xxxi ; but Chavannes seems to give the name as *Ho-louo-che-po-tch'a* (Harṣabhaṭa), see his *Religieux Éminents*, p. 128.

v1.c16.19

⁴ The editor of the Ashrafpur plates placed them "in the 8th or 9th centuries A.D." This view is still held by some scholars, see *Bāngālār Itihās*, by R. D. Banerji, 2nd Ed., pp. 164 ff., 233 ff. But see *JASB*, 1923, pp. 376 ff. The date proposed above is also supported by the suggested identification of "roi de l'Inde Orientale qui s'applle T'i-p'ouo-po-mo (Devavarman)," the contemporary of king Ādityasena (je-Kium = l'armée du soleil) mentioned by Hoei-luen (*c.* 650-700 A.D.) with Devakhaḍga of the Ashrafpur plates and Ādityasena of the Shahpur image inscription ; See Chavannes, *Les Religieux Eminents*, pp. 81 and 83 ; *Life*, pp. xxxvi-xxxvii.

v1.c16.20.1

Neither of these dynasties however appears to have succeeded in establishing a united and strong government in Bengal and Bihar. The result was that these rich tracts remained for about 50 years (c. 700—750 A.D.) a constant prey to foreign invaders. The first invasion so far recorded appears to have been that of the princes of the Saila family. The Ragholi (Balaghat district, C.P.) plates of Jayavardhana II inform us that his grandfather took Kāśi after killing its ‘self-conceited and cruel king,’ while the elder brother of this grandfather took the whole country of Puṇḍra after destroying its ruler. As the script of the inscription ‘very much resembles those of the Paithan plates of Govinda III, dated in the year 794 A.D,’ it is probably not unreasonable to refer the events recorded above to *c.* 725 A.D.¹ It is not improbable that the prince referred to as a Pauṇḍra king in this inscription was Jīvitagupta or one of the successors of Ādityasena. The invasion of the Sailas was followed by that of Yaśovarman, who is described in the *Rājataraṅgiṇī* of Kalhaṇa, as lord of “the land of Kanyakubja from the bank of the Yamunā to the Kālikā.”² Stein has identified this prince with ‘the king of Central India, *I-cha-fon-mo*, who in A.D.

v1.c16.20.2

731 sent an embassy to the Chinese Court.’³ It appears from the Chinese annals that he was on his throne at least between 731 and 736 A.D., and it was probably during these years that he undertook a triumphal procession of *digvijaya* for the conquest of the countries all round his dominions, which is recorded in the *Gauḍavaho* of Vākpatirāja.⁴ In the course of his eastern expedition he seems to have met the king of Gauḍa, who is also called *Magadhādhipa*, not far from the ‘Vindhya region,’ and defeated him in a fierce battle, in which the vassals and nobles of the eastern king appeared “like sparks of light issuing from a shooting-star.” After the battle the *Magadhādhipa* was pursued and slain by Yaśovarman, who then proceeded eastwards and compelled the Vaṅga king though ‘powerful in the possession of a large number of warlike elephants’ to acknowledge him as his suzerain.¹ It is not certain who this ruler of Magadha-Gauḍa was; but that he was a powerful sovereign is clear from the fact that his dominions extended from the borders of Vaṅga (Eastern Bengal) to the Vindhyas. Possibly he was one of the Śaila rulers referred to above who conquered Kāśī and Puṇḍra in about the first quarter of the 7th century A.D. It is significant that the Śaila prince Śrīvardhana, who is probably not far removed from the 2nd quarter of the 8th century, is called ‘the lord of the Vindhya’ (*Vindhyeśvara*), the very mountain not far from which the two armies met for the first time.

v1.c16.20.3

It is not improbable that the Vaṅga (Samataṭa) king defeated by Yaśovarman was one of the Khaḍga rulers referred to above. The success of Yaśovarman was however short-lived, and not long after 736 A.D., he fell a victim to the ambition of the Kārkoṭa king Lalitāditya Muktāpīḍa, probably known to the Chinese as *Mu-to-pi*.² We are told by Kalhaṇa that after annexing the dominions of the Kanauj king, Lalitāditya ‘proceeded with ease to the eastern ocean’ and reached the ‘“Gauḍa land.”’³ Another invasion of Bengal-Bihar was probably undertaken by the Kāmarūpa king Śrī-Harṣa (Hariṣa?), who is referred to in the Paśupati inscription of his son-in-law Jayadeva of Nepal (153 = 153 + 595 = 748 A.D?) as the ruler of *Gauḍa, Oḍra, Kaliṅga, Kosala and other lands*.⁴ This appears to have been followed by the invasion of the Kashmirian king Jayāpīḍa, who is reported by Kalhaṇa to have visited the lands east of Prayāga in the course of his adventures in the early part of his reign (c. 762-63 A.D.). We are told that Jayāpīḍa reached 'the city of Pauṇḍravardhana, subject to the king of Gauḍa and at that time protected by a prince called Jayanta.' The Kashmīrian monarch married Kalyāṇadevī, the daughter of Jayanta, and after conquering 'the chiefs of the five Gauḍas' (*Pañca-Gauḍ-ādhipān*), made his father-in-law their sovereign.

v1.c16.20.4

Though it is not impossible that there may be some grain of historical fact in the stories of the adventures of Jayāpīḍa, all attempts to identify Jayanta must remain problematical.¹ As a result of all these invasions the lower Ganges valley must have been reduced to a chaotic condition. The Lāma Tāranātha, referring to the condition of this region just before the election of Gopāla, the founder of the Pāla dynasty, says: "There was no longer any member of it (the royal family of the Candras) a king; in Oḍiviśa, in Bengal and the other five provinces to the east, each Kṣatriya, Brāhman, and merchant (Vaiśya?) constituted himself king of his surroundings, but there was no king ruling the country."² The anarchic condition is more vividly expressed by the expression *Mātsyanyāya* which is applied by the Khalimpur inscription of Dharmapāla to describe the condition of North-eastern India before the election of Gopāla.³

v1.c16.21

¹ *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 41-47. I have accepted a comparatively earlier date for the events, as the conquests apparently took place during the reign of the great-grandfather of the donor. The conquerors having died during the life-time of their father, the next king mentioned in the inscription is the father of the donor.

v1.c16.22

² IV, 132-46.

v1.c16.23

³ Stein's Eng. Trans., *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, Vol. I, pp. 88-89.

v1.c16.24

⁴ *Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series*, No. XXXIV, Re-edited by N. B. Utgikar Poona, 1927, verses 192-688.

v1.c16.25

¹ *Ibid*, verses 354, 414-20.

v1.c16.26

² *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*, Stein's Trans., Vol. 1, pp. 88-89.

v1.c16.27

³ *Ibid*, IV, 145-48. Specially note the verses 323-30 which describe the treacherous murder of the Gauḍa king by Lalitāditya and the bravery of the ‘dark-coloured’ servants of the Gauḍa prince, which when contrasted with the conventional details of the *digvijaya*, have an historical appearance.

v1.c16.28

⁴ *IA*, Vol. IX, p. 179, line 15. See also *supra*, pp. 192 and 241.

v1.c16.29

¹ *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, IV, 421-68; Kalhaṇa places the reign of Jayāpīḍa in 751-782 A.D. As the adventures in Gauḍa-Puṇḍra are placed by Kalhaṇa in the beginning of his reign, and as Stein has shown that we must correct these dates of the local historian by adding a period of about 12 years, I have placed Jayāpīḍa's possible visit to the lower Ganges valley in c. 762-63 A.D. As to the identification of Jayanta, I would point out that in my chronology he is placed sufficiently near Gopāla to raise the suspicion of their identity.

v1.c16.30

² *IA*, Vol. IV, 1875, pp. 365-366.

v1.c16.31

³ *EI*, Vol. IV, verse 4.

v1.c16.32

In the last paragraph I have indirectly placed Gopāla in the beginning of the second half of the 8th century. There has been recently much discussion on the chronology of the Pālas. We do not propose here to enter into a detailed examination of this question. It will be sufficient if we remember the foundation stones on which all schemes of Pāla chronology must inevitably rest. In the case of the nine kings from Gopāla to Mahīpāla, these are: (1) The date Śaka 705 expired (783-84 A.D.) supplied by the *Jaina Harivaṁśa* for Indrāyudha, who must be identified with the Mahodaya ruler Indrarāja of the Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla, who was dethroned by Dharmapāla. (2) The synchronism of Dharmapāla with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govinda III (793-814 A.D.) established by the identification of Dharma and Cakrāyudha, mentioned in the Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa as surrendering themselves to Govinda III, with the Dharmapāla and Cakrāyudha of the Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla. (3) The Vikrama year 1083 (A.D. 1026) given in the Sarnath inscription for Mahīpāla (I). (4) The synchronism of Rājendra Cola and Mahīpāla established by the former's Tirumalai inscription, which records an attack made by the Cola king upon the lower Ganges valley in about 1021-25 A.D. (5) And the synchronism of Nāgabhaṭa (*c.* 807-33 A.D.) and Cakrāyudha established by the Sagartal (Gwalior) inscription of Bhoja (v. 9). The year 1026 A.D. for Mahīpāla is usually taken by scholars to mark the end of his reign. Accepting that hypothesis for the time being, and counting backwards from that date, we arrive at the date 769 A.D., for Dharmapāla (1026-257 = 769 A.D.). In this calculation we have two uncertain factors, *viz.*, the year 1026 A.D. may not have been the last year of Mahīpāla, and the period of 257 years which is the total of the reign-period so far known of the rulers from Dharmapāla to Mahīpāla does not take into account the unkuown reign-period of Vigrahapāla (II). Again it is not certain that the reign-periods so far known were the last years of the reign of the respective sovereigns. Within these limitations, the dates of the rulers from Gopāla to Mahīpāla may be shown as follows:

v1.c16.33

| 1. | Gopāla | ... | *c.* 765 | A.D. (reign-period not known). |
| 2. | Dharmapāla | ... | *c.* 769-801 | „ (reign-period so far known 32 years). |
| 3. | Devapāla | ... | *c.* 801-840 | „ ( „ „ 39 „ ). |
| 4. | Vigrahapāla (I) or Śūrapāla | ... | *c.* 840-843 | „ ( „ „ 3 „ ). |

v1.c16.34

| 5. | Nārāyaṇapāla | ... | *c.* 843-897 A.D. | (reign-period so far known |
| | | | | „ 54 years). |
| 6. | Rājyapāla | ... | *c.* 897-921 „ | ( „ „ 21 „ ). |
| 7. | Gopāla (II) | ... | *c.* 921-978 „ | ( „ „ 57 „ ). |
| 8. | Vigrahapāla (II) | ... | *c.* 978- ? „ | ( „ „ not known). |
| 9. | Mahīpāla (I) | ... | *c.* 978-1026 „ | ( „ „ 48 years). |

v1.c16.35

The chronology proposed above is open to the obvious criticism which I have already pointed out. But the fact that any considerable increase in the reign-periods would push Dharmapāla into the period 700-50 A.D., seems to indicate that the possible total excess of reign-periods cannot be large. A little elasticity in the chronological scheme may however be introduced if we place the date 1026 A.D. in the middle of Mahīpāla's reign. The arguments so far advanced to prove that Mahīpāla was dead before 1026 A.D. do not appear to me to be at all conclusive. Even assuming that Mahīpāla died before 1026 A.D., his reign can only be moved back from that date by a few years, for any big gap would place Dharmapāla in the period 750-60 A.D. The division of Gauḍa into five divisions in *c.* 762-63 at the time of Jayāpīḍa, is not consistent with what we know of Dharmapāla's reign. (But in view of the synchronism of Dharmapāla with Govinda III (*c.* 794-814 A.D.) and Nāgabhaṭa II (*c.* 815-33 A.D.) it would, I think, be safer if we push forward the period of Dharmapāla's reign by another 14 years and place the last date of Mahīpāla in *c.* 1040 A.D. This would give Dharmapāla a reign of 46 years (769-815 A.D.), which is not at all impossible in view of the fact that Tāranātha assigns him a period of 64 years. The reign-periods assigned by this historian sometimes, as in the case of Mahīpāla (I) and Rāmapāla, have been found to be approximately in agreement with the known dates of those princes. Thus unless there is some mistake in the ascription of the dates found on inscriptions or colophons of MSS. the above table *with this correction* should serve as the nearest approximations of the reign-periods of the first nine Pālas. As to the eight later Pālas who followed Mahīpāla I, we have to take into consideration the known reign-periods of these princes, which is 106 years. This however does not include the unknown reign-periods of three princes, and includes 4 years for Kumārapāla, which, as we shall see is an uncertain quantity. In this connection we must bear in mind the synchronisms between Nayapāla and Vigrahapāla (III) and the Tripurī Kalacuri Lakṣmī-Karṇadeva (*c.* 1041-70 A.D.) and that between Rāmapāla, and Nānyadeva (*c.* 1097-1150 A.D.). The argument that since in a MS. dated in 1120 A.D. the Nepal king Sadāśivadeva is styled *Rājādhirājā-Parameśvara*, the supremacy of Nānyadeva over the Bagmati valley must have been over by that date, cannot be accepted as conclusive, for we have already shown elsewhere that Nepal rulers appear to have continued to assume imperial titles in spite of their subservient position.¹ Thus the theory based on this supposition that Vijayasena must have conquered North-Bengal and Tirhut in about 1120 A.D. from Madanapāla and Nānyadeva loses its force. I have elsewhere shown reason to suppose that Nānya's reign may have continued even up to about the middle of the 12th century A.D.² Again, in view of the fact that the Pālas appear to have lingered on in Magadha till the middle of the 12th century there is nothing impossible in supposing that Madanapāla may have continued to rule for some time in Bihar even after he lost North-Bengal. Within the limitations which we have already pointed out, we can then propose the following table for the last eight Pāla kings :

v1.c16.36

¹ See *supra*, *Dynastic History of Nepal*, pp. 206-209 and 220-21.

v1.c16.37

² See *supra*, pp. 204-205 and fn. 1 on p. 205.

v1.c16.38

| 10. | Nayapāla, | *c.* 1040-1055 | A.D. (reign-period so far known, | 15 years). | | |
| 11. | Vigrahapāla (III), | *c.* 1055-1081 | A.D. (reign-period | 26 years). | | |
| 12. | Mahīpāla (II), | *c.* 1082-? | ,, | ( ,, | ,, | not known). |
| 13. | Śūrapāla (II), | *c.* 1083-? | ,, | ( ,, | ,, | not known). |

v1.c16.39

| 14. | Rāmapāla, | *c.* 1084-1126 | A.D. | (reign-period | 42 years). |
| 15. | Kumārapāla, | *c.* 1126-1130 | ,, | ( ,, ,, | 4 years ?). |
| 16. | Gopāla (III), | *c.* 1130- ? | ,, | ( ,, ,, | not known). |
| 17. | Madanapāla, | *c.* 1130-1150 | ,, | ( ,, ,, | 19 years). |
| ? | Govindapāla, | *c.* 1150-1162 | ,, | | |
| ? | Palapāla, | *c.* 1162- ? | ,, | | |

v1.c16.40

We can introduce a little more elasticity in the chronological frame by placing Madanapāla a few years later, for we do not know how long Govindapāla ruled. A Gayā inscription gives the date V. E. 1232 as the 14th year, counting from the end of his reign. (*Śrī Govindapāladeva-gata-rājye-caturdaśa-saṁvatsare*.) His reign thus ended in *c.* 1162 A.D. But he may have ascended the throne of Magadha a few years after 1150 A.D.¹ Palapāla of the Jaynagar image inscription may have reigned for a few years after Govindapāla.

v1.c16.41

¹ For Pāla chronology, see *IA*, 1909, Vol. 38, pp. 238-248; *MASB*, Vol. III, No. 1, pp. 4 ff.; *JBORS*, December, 1928, pp. 489-538, September-December, 1929, pp. 647-50; *Bāngālār Itihās*, by R. D. Banerji, 2nd Ed., Vol. I, pp. 179 ff.; *IA*, 1920, Vol. 49, pp. 189-93; *JASB*, 1921, Vol. XVII (N.S.), pp. 1-6; *IHQ*, September, 1927, pp. 571-91. Excepting his name there is at present nothing to show that Palapāla belonged to the Pāla dynasty.

v1.c16.42

Turning now to the details of Pāla history, we are first confronted with the question of their origin. In their inscriptions the Pālas never claim any descent from any mythical or epic hero, which is such a common feature in the genealogical tables of many other dynasties of India. In the earliest grant of the dynasty the Khalimpur plate of Dharmapāla, we are simply told that the family sprang from Dayitaviṣṇu, who is called *Sarva-vidyāvadāta* (sanctified by all sorts of knowledge). His son Vapyaṭa (Bappaṭa ? ) is described as *Khaṇḍitārāti*; and the latter's son Gopāla was forced to accept the hands of the Goddess of Fortune in order to put an end to the condition of anarchy (*mātsyanyāya*) then prevailing in North-eastern India. In the commentary of the *Rāmacarita* the Pālas are said to have sprung from the sea, while in the Kamauli grant of Vaidyadeva they are said to have been born in the family of the sun (*vaṁśe Mihirasya*). In the commentary of a Nepal MS. of the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā* written by Haribhadra in the reign of Dharmapāla the latter is described as *Rājabhaṭādi-vaṁśa-patita*. In the *Ā’īn-i-Akbarī* the Pālas are described as a ‘Kāyeth family.’¹ These are the facts on which must depend any discussion on the origin of the Pālas. Of these we may reject the testimony of the *Ā’īn-i-Akbarī* as very late. The statements of the *Rāmacarita* and the Kamauli grant are also separated from Gopāla by more than three hundred years. From the Khalimpur grant it appears that Dayitaviṣṇu belonged to an educated plebeian family, which was probably neither Brahman nor Kṣatriya. In the troublesome days that then prevailed in North-eastern India during the first half of the 8th century, the family must have soon found the sword to be more profitable than the pen. This transformation may have led to the foundation of the fortunes of the family. Vapyaṭa and then Gopāla appear to have met with considerable success in their new profession, to be deemed able to save the country from the grip of anarchy. Attempts have been made to show that the statement of Haribhadra means that Dharmapāla was a descendant of Rājabhaṭa, the son of Devakhaḍga of the Ashrafpur plates.² Though the fact that the Pālas and the Khaḍgas were both Bauddha families, may be considered favourable to such an identification, and there is no inherent difficulty about the chronological position of the two families, yet I think it is better not to push this theory too far. For it is doubtful whether *Rājabhaṭādi-vaṁśa-patita* can really mean scion of Rājabhaṭa. Paṇḍit H. P. Sāstrī took it to mean ‘the

v1.c16.43

¹ See *EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 243 ff., verses 1-4; *MASB*, Vol. III, No. 1, pp. 20-21; *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 347 ff.; *AAK*, Vol. II, p. 145; *JASB*, 1923, Vol. XIX (N.S.), p. 379 and fn. 2. The verse in Haribhadra’s commentary is as follows:

v1.c16.44

² *JASB*, 1923, p. 379; *Bāṅgālār Itihās*, 2nd Ed., Vol. I, pp. 164 ff.

v1.c16.45

“*Rājye Rājabhaṭ·ādi-vaṁśa-patita-śrī-Dharmapālasya vai*
*Tattvālokā-vidhāyinī viracitā Sat-pañjik=eyam mayā*.”

v1.c16.46

See also Bangad grant of Mahīpāla, V. 2, *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 324 ff. and p. 329 fn. 1.

v1.c16.47

descendant of a military officer of some king.') Then it is curious that if the two predecessors of Gopāla were really sprung from a royal dynasty they should be referred to as plebeians in the Khalimpur grant. It would require very strong proofs to show that a reigning family which could trace its descent to kings of the past would have remained silent about that connection in their genealogical tables. It is so unusual in India.

v1.c16.48

Tāranāth informs us that Gopāla first began to reign in Bengal and then brought Magadha under his power. Though mixed up with stories, the account of the Tibetan historian about the election of Gopāla is in agreement with the Khalimpur grant. The statement that Gopāla was first raised to the throne of Bengal appears to be also supported by the commentary of the *Rāmacarita* which refers to Varendrī as the *janakabhū* of Rāmapāla. The Kamauli grant of Vaidyadeva also refers to the recovery of the *janakabhū* by Rāmapāla, which is taken by some scholars to mean Varendrī.¹ The Monghyr grant of Devapāla informs us that Gopāla conquered the world up to the sea (*vijitya yenā jaladhe vasundharām*).² From the fact that his son was able to undertake extensive military campaigns it is not improbable that Gopāla fully consolidated his position before he died. The Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla compares him with *Lokanātha Daśabala* (Buddha), both being said to have overcome the *Kāmakāris*.³ In the Khalimpur record of his son he is given the epithet *parama-Saugata*. According to Tāranāth 'he built the Nalandara temple not far from Otantapura and reigned for 45 years.'⁴ We have no dated colophons of MSS. or inscriptions of his reign.

v1.c16.49

¹ *IA*, Vol. IV, 1875, p. 366; *EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 243-54, verse 4; *MASB*, Vol. III, No. 1, p. 31, I, 38; *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 347-58; *Gauḍalekhamālā*, pp. 127 ff.

v1.c16.50

² *EI*, Vol. XVIII, p. 304.

v1.c16.51

³ *IA*, 1886, Vol. XV, p. 304.

v1.c16.52

⁴ *IA*, Vol. IV, p. 366.

v1.c16.53.1

Gopāla was succeeded by Dharmapāla, his son by Dedda-devī.¹ The Khalimpur grant of this king refers to his extensive conquest in Northern India. We are told that "with a sign of his gracefully moved eyebrows he installed the illustrious king of Kānyakubja, who readily was accepted by the Bhoja, Matsya, Madra, Kuru, Yadu, Yavana, Avanti, Gandhāra and Kīra kings, bowing down respectfully with their diadems trembling, and for whom his own golden coronation jar was lifted by the delighted elders of Pañcāla." (V. 12.) In connection with this statement, there is in the preceding verse (V. 11), a veiled reference to Mahendra being terrified at the movements of his armies. The political events hinted at in these two verses are partly indicated by verse 3 of the Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla, which runs as follows: "This mighty one (*i.e.* Dharmapāla) again gave the sovereignty which he had acquired by defeating Indrarāja and other enemies, to the begging Cakrāyudha, who resembled a dwarf in bowing; just as formerly Bali had given the sovereignty (of the three worlds) which he had acquired by defeating Indra and his other enemies (the gods) to the begging Cakrāyudha (Viṣṇu), who had descended to the earth as a dwarf."² The three verses when read together seem to imply that Dharmapāla, after having extended his power over a large portion of Northern India, dethroned one Indrarāja of Kanauj and installed in his place a feudatory of his named Cakrāyudha.

v1.c16.53.2

If this Indrarāja is identified with the Indrāyudha of the Jaina *Harivaṁśa*, the ruler of the north (calculated from Vordhamāna-Wadhwan in Kathiawar), who was ruling contemporaneously with Vatsarāja of Avanti, the ruler of the east, evidently the Gurjara-Pratīhāra king of that name then, it would appear that Dharmapāla achieved considerable military and diplomatic success in Northern India sometime after 783-84 A.D. To Kielhorn, when editing the Khalimpur grant in 1896-97, the name of Cakrāyudha, king of Kanauj was a mystery. But since then the discovery of other inscriptions of contemporary reigning families of India has solved the difficulty.

v1.c16.53.3

These are in brief as follows: verse 80 of the Radhanpur grant of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govinda III (*Śaka* 730 = 808 A.D.) tells us that Dhora (Dhruva) drove into the trackless forest Vatsarāja 'who boasted of having with ease appropriated the fortune of Gauḍa,' and 'took away from him, not merely the two Gauḍa umbrellas of state but also his fame.'¹ As the Wani grant of the same king (*Śaka* 730 = 807 A.D.), which contains the same verses as the Radhanpur grant, does not contain verse 15 of the latter, which refers to defeat of the 'Gurjara' by Govinda,—a victory so decisive that the Gurjara king's whereabouts were not known to any—it is possible that the final defeat of the Gurjara may have occurred between the two dates of the grants (807-808 A.D.).² The identity of this Gurjara king is probably revealed by the Sanjan grant of Amoghavarṣa (*Śaka* 793 = 871 A.D.), which, besides referring to the victory of (Dhruva) Dhārāvarṣa over the Gauḍa king, tells us that Govinda III defeated in battle Nāgabhaṭa, and as the former advanced to the springs of the Himalayas "those (kings) Dharma and Cakrāyudha surrendered of themselves."³ Line 12 of the Baroda grant of Karka II (*Śaka* 734 = 812-13 A.D.) seems to refer to a conflict of Dhruva and the Gauḍa king between the Ganges and the Jumna.⁴ Verse 9 of the Sagartal (Gwalior) inscription of Bhoja tells us that his grandfather Nāgabhaṭa (*c.* 815-33 A.D.)⁵ defeated 'Cakrāyudha whose lowly demeanour was manifest from his dependence on others,'⁶ while the next verse of the same inscription refers to the defeat of the lord of Vaṅga (*Vaṅgapati*) at the hands of the Gurjara king.

v1.c16.53.4

Without going into details we may say that the statements of the Pāla records are substantially borne out by the Gurjara and Rāṣṭrakūta inscriptions. It seems likely that after the fall of Yaśovarman (*c.* 731-36 A.D.) there was no effective government in the Gaṅgā-Yamunā valley. Taking advantage of the weakness of the Kanauj prince Indrāyudha (*c.* 783-84 A.D.), Dharmapāla invaded Northern India and placed his own nominee on the throne of Kanauj. But he had soon to meet other rivals in the persons of the Gurjara Vatsarāja and Nāgabhaṭa II, and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas Dhruva and Govinda III. The struggle for the possession of the rich lands of the upper Ganges was thus trilateral and may be represented by the following table:—

v1.c16.54

¹ *EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 243 ff.; Kielhorn suggested that Deddadevi was 'the daughter of the Bhadra King'; but his interpretation has been opposed in *Gauḍalekhamālā*, p. 12.

v1.c16.55

² *IA*, Vol. XV, p. 307.

v1.c16.56

¹ *EI*, Vol. VI, pp. 239 ff.

v1.c16.57

² *IA*, Vol. XI, pp. 156 ff.

v1.c16.58

³ *EI*, Vol. XVII, pp. 235 ff., verses 14, 22-23.

v1.c16.59

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XII, pp. 158 ff., lines 22-23; on p. 168. Fleet's translation referred the conflict to Govinda III; but see *JL*, 1923, Vol. X, p. 35 and fn. 2; also *EI*, Vol. XVIII, p. 239, fn. 4.

v1.c16.60

⁵ *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 199-200; *ibid*, Vol. XIV, pp. 179, fn. 3.

v1.c16.61

⁶ *Ibid*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 99 ff.

v1.c16.62

| Dharmapāla (*c.* 769 815 A.D.) | Vatsarāja (*c.* 783-84 A.D.) Nāgabhaṭa (*c.* 815-33 A.D.) | Dhruva (779-94 A.D.) Govinda III (*c.* 794-814 A.D.) |

v1.c16.63

The success of the Pālas appears to have been of short duration. At any rate if the Rāṣṭrakūṭa records are to be believed, both Cakrāyudha and Dharmapāla were in distress evidently due to the attack of Nāgabhaṭa sometime before 814 A.D. Thus Dharmapāla's imperial position in Northern India had vanished, and if the Sanjan plates mean anything, he tried to form an alliance with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govinda III for checking Nāgabhaṭa II. As verse 22 of the same inscription shows, the alliance probably resulted in the defeat of Nāgabhaṭa about 807-08 A.D.;¹ but the advance of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa army up to the Vindhyas was probably not favourable to the re-establishment of Pāla hegemony in Northern India.²

v1.c16.64

¹ *JL*, Vol. X, p. 44.

v1.c16.65

² The Monghyr grant of Devapāla tells us that Dharmapāla in the course of his campaigns advanced up to Kedāra-tīrtha, Gaṅgāsāgara and Gokarna while according to the Badal *praśasti* of Gurava Miśra, Garga is said to have made Dharma the *sovereign of the East*. See *EI*, Vol. XVIII, p. 304; Vol. II, pp. 160 ff. The places mentioned by the Monghyr grant may have marked the extreme limits of Pāla hegemony.

v1.c16.66

According to the Bhagalpur inscription of Nārāyaṇapāla and the Badal *praśasti* of Gurava Miśra, Dharmapāla was assisted in his military campaigns by his younger brother Vākpāla and his Brahman minister Garga.

v1.c16.67

Dharmapāla married Raṇṇādevī, the daughter of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Parabala, who has been identified with a prince of the same name whose Pathari (Long. 78°15′, and Lat. 24°56′, Bhopal Agency, C.P.) pillar inscription is dated in V.E. 917 (*c.* 861 A.D.).¹ If this Parabala was really the father-in-law of Dharmapāla, his inscription must have been incised very late in the life of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa chief. From his seal as well as his title *Parama-saugata*, it is clear that Dharmapāla was a Buddhist. But it is a curious commentary on his Buddhism that the Monghyr grant of his son should give him the credit for making the castes (*varṇān*) conform to their proper rules (*svadharme*). According to Tibetan tradition it was Dharmapāla who built the celebrated Buddhist monastery of Vikramaśīlā on a hill situated on the bank of the Ganges.² We have the following records of the reign of Dharmapāla:

v1.c16.68

¹ *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 248 ff.; in this connection see *JASB*, 1921, p. 5; *Gauḍarājamālā*, by Canda, p. 25; *Bāṅgālār Itihās*, 2nd Ed., Vol. I, pp. 195-96.

v1.c16.69

² *JBTS*, Calcutta, 1893, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 11 and 17.

v1.c16.70

(1) *Bodhgaya stone inscription.*—Discovered by Cunningham in the south of the Mahābodhi temple at Bodhgaya. It is a short inscription of 9 lines incised on a stone bearing the figure of Viṣṇu, Sūrya, and Śrī (Bhairava ?). It records the installation at Mahābodhi of a four-faced (image) of Mahādeva (*Mahādevaścaturmukhaḥ*) and the construction of a *puṣkariṇī* at a cost of 3,000 *drammas* by Keśava, the son of the sculptor (*śilābhit*) Ujjvala in the 26th year of king Dharmapāla.³

v1.c16.71

³ Dr. R. L. Mitra first tried to give the reading of the inscription in the *PASB*, 1880, p. 80; first properly edited by Prof. N. Chakravarti in *JASB*, Vol. IV (N.S.), pp. 101 ff.; then by A. K. Maitra in *Gauḍalekhamālā*, pp. 29 ff., under the name *Keśava-praśasti*. Preserved in the Indian Museum, Calcutta.

v1.c16.72

(2) *Khalimpur grant.*—Purchased from a cultivator of the village of Khalimpur, near Gaur in the Malda district. Single plate (written on both sides, 33+29 lines) surmounted by a highly wrought ornament soldered on the top of it. The main part of the ornament is a seal formed by five concentric rings. On the upper part of the seal is a wheel on a pedestal with a deer facing on either side. Immediately below we have the legend *Śrīmān-Dharmapāladevaḥ*. Then comes the genealogy of the donor. The inscription was issued from *Pāṭaliputra-samāvāsita-Śrīmaj-jayaskandhāvāra* by *Paramasaugato-Mahārājādhirāja-Śrīmad-Dharmapāladevaḥ*. The grant which is dated in his 32nd year, records the gift of the three villages of Krauñcaśvabhra, Māḍhāśālmali and Pālitaka in the *Viṣaya* of Mahantāprakāśa, attached to the *Maṇḍala* of Vyāghrataṭī in the *Puṇḍravardhana-Bhukti* and the village of Gopippalī in the *Āmraṣaṇḍikā-Maṇḍala* attached to the *Viṣaya* of Sthālīkkaṭa to the temple of Nanna-Nārāyaṇa-bhaṭṭāraka, established by *Mahāsāmantādhipati* Nārāyaṇavarman. The grant was made at the request of this officer, and the *Dūtaka* of the grant was the *Yuvarāja* Tribhuvanapāla. The description of the camp at Pāṭaliputra, beginning with *Sa khalu Bhāgīrathī-patha pravartamāna* and ending with *pādāta-bhara-namad-avaneḥ* first occurring in this inscription after verse 13, became the stereotyped description of the *Jaya-skandhāvāras* of the Pālas in all subsequent grants.¹

v1.c16.73

¹ The inscription was first discovered and published with a translation and a small but clear photo-etching in *JASB*, Vol. LXIII, Part 1, pp. 39 ff. Then edited by Kielhorn in *EI*, Vol. IV, pp. 243 ff.; re-edited in *Gauḍalekhamālā* by A. K. Maitra, pp. 9 ff. The inscription is reported to be in the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

v1.c16.74

(3) A MS. of the *Haricarita-kāvya* by Caturbhuja, containing the statement that one of his ancestors, Svarṇarekha, got the village of Karañja in Varendrī as a *Śāsana* from *Nṛpa* Dharmapāla. Suvarṇarekha is described in the passage as *Śruti-smṛti-purāṇa-pada-pravīṇaḥ*, and was apparently a Brahman (*vipra*).²

v1.c16.75

² *CPMDN*, p. 131.

v1.c16.76

(4) *Clay Seals.*—Recently in a mound at Paharpur, District Rajshahi, North Bengal, clay seals have been discovered bearing the name *Śrī-Dharmapāla-deva*.¹

v1.c16.77

¹ *Calcutta Review*, May, 1928, p. 240. Also 'A Brief Account of Excavations at Paharpur by N. K. Dikshit,' Sir John Marshall in *Illustrated London News* of 29th January 1927. Also *ASI*, 1922-23, pp. 115 ff., 2 Plates, Nos. XV and XVI.

v1.c16.78

The evidence of these records shows that Dharmapāla ruled at least for 32 years, and held sway over territory extending from Pāṭaliputra to Rajshahi. I have already discussed the reasons for thinking that he reigned for a longer period which according to my calculation is 46 years (769-815 A.D.), and it is likely that he ruled directly over a more extensive area than the evidence of the inscriptions at present indicates. In his Khalimpur plate the *Yuvarāja* Tribhubanapāla is mentioned as the *Dūtaka* of the grant. Though not explicitly mentioned as such, he is usually taken by scholars to have been the eldest son and heir of Dharmapāla. As in the subsequent inscriptions Devapāla is mentioned as son and successor of Dharmapāla, it is supposed that he must have died during his father's lifetime. This is a possible explanation, though the likelihood of an Aśoka or Aurangzīb ousting their elder brothers who were de-facto *Yuvarājas* is not entirely eliminated. It should also be noticed that in Indian history a *Yuvarāja*, unless it is established on other evidence, should not necessarily be taken as the eldest son. In the case of Devapāla however the suggestion of any violence at the time of his accession appears to be contradicted by verse 12 of his Monghyr grant, which tells us that he succeeded to his father's dominions without any trouble (*nirupaplavam*), even as the Bodhisattva got *Saugatam padam*.

v1.c16.79

In the Pāla records Devapāla appears as a mighty conqueror. We are told in his Monghyr grant that during his victorious expeditions his war-elephants reached the Vindhyas, while his cavalry roamed about in the Kāmboja country (V. 13.). In another verse of the same inscription, the *praśastikāra* tells us that this king enjoyed the whole region bounded on the north by the Himalayas, in the south by Rāma's bridge (*ā-setoḥ prathita-daśāsya-ketu-kīrteḥ*), and by the abodes of Varuṇa and Lakṣmī (*i.e.*, the oceans), on the east and the west (V. 15). In the Bhagalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla Jayapāla, a son of Vākpāla and grandson of Gopāla, claims to have undertaken successful expeditions at the direction of Devapāla. We are told that at his approach the lord of Utkala took fright and fled from his capital, while the king of Prāgjyōtiṣa only continued to rule in his kingdom in safety when he agreed to hold the commands of Jayapāla on his proud head (V. 6). The Badal pillar inscription of the time of Guravamiśra also supplies interesting information on the victories of Devapāla. From this inscription we find the names of three ministers of Devapāla :

v1.c16.80

``` Devapāla ... Darbhapāṇi = Sarkarā-devī.

v1.c16.81

... Someśvara = Rallā-devī. (Gauḍeśvara) ... Kedāra Miśra = Vavvā. ? ```

v1.c16.82

We are told by the composer of this *praśasti* that, aided by the diplomacy (*nīti-kauśala*) of his minister Darbhapāṇi, Devapāla made tributary the whole region from Revā's father (Vindhyas) to the father of Gaurī (Himalayas) and from the eastern to the western ocean whose waters are red with the rays of the rising and setting sun' (V. 5). Thanks again to the wise counsel of the third minister Kedāra Miśra, 'the *Gauḍeśvara* long ruled the sea-girt earth, having eradicated the race of the Utkalas, humbled the pride of the Hūṇas, and scattered the conceit of the rulers of Draviḍa and Gurjara.'¹ Following Kielhorn, scholars usually identify this king of Gauḍa with Devapāla. No doubt many of these claims are much too extravagant to be taken seriously; but apart from these statements, there appears to be sufficient evidence to show that Devapāla really had some military success. The chief rivals of the Pālas at this period were the Gurjaras and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. The contemporary princes may be arranged in the following tabular form:

v1.c16.83

¹ It is interesting to note that Tāranātha also represents Devapāla as having greatly increased the power of the Pālas. He is said to have 'brought into submission the kingdom of Varendra in the east and afterwards the province of Oḍiviśa.' See *IA*, 1875, Vol. IV, p. 366.

v1.c16.84

| Devapāla (c. 815-854 A.D.) | Nāgabhaṭa (c. 815-833 A.D.) Rāmabhadra Bhoja (c. 836-90 A. D.) | Amoghavarṣa (814-77 A.D.) |

v1.c16.85

In describing the career of Dharmapāla we have already noticed how his preliminary success appears to have been ended by the vigorous attack of Nāgabhaṭa II, who may have even captured Kanauj by ousting Cakrāyudha. But the success of the Gurjara combined the other claimants for Kanauj against him. If we are to believe the Rāṣṭrakūṭa records, the Gurjaras were defeated and the triumphant Deccani army advanced up to the Himalayas. What happened after this is not clear. Whether Nāgabhaṭa still held Kanauj, or whether Cakrāyudha was restored to his throne, is uncertain. But it is likely that the alliance between Govinda and Dharmapāla which is hinted at in the Sanjan plates did not last long; for the Nilgund inscription of Amoghavarṣa tells us that Govinda III fettered the Gauḍas.¹ But the death of Govinda III in *c.* 814 A.D. and the internal dissensions of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas which followed must have come as a welcome relief to the Pālas.² The death of Nāgabhaṭa II in about 933 A.D. and the accession of the weak Rāmabhadra further helped Devapāla to realize his ambition.³ He may have again recovered the same position in Northern India which was enjoyed by his father Dharmapāla for some time. But as the Barah grant of Bhoja, dated in 836 A. D., tells us that it was issued from Mahodaya, it must be assumed that either Devapāla lost ground during the latter part of his reign or that Kanauj remained under the Gurjaras since the time of Nāgabhaṭa II and could not be recovered y the Pālas.¹ (Indeed verse 18 of the Gwalior inscription which refers to Bhoja's victory over Dharmapāla's son appears to indicate a Gurjara success over Devapāla.²)

v1.c16.86

¹ *IA*, Vol. VI, p. 103, line 8.

v1.c16.87

² *BG*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 402 and 409.

v1.c16.88

³ *JL*, Vol. X, pp. 45 ff.

v1.c16.89

¹ *EI*, Vol. V, p. 211.

v1.c16.90

² *Ibid*, Vol. XVII, pp. 99 ff.

v1.c16.91

The recent discovery of the Nālandā copper-plate of Devapāla has thrown an interesting sidelight on the history of Bengal and Bihar of this period. The plate records the grant of five villages in the *Viṣayas* of Rājagṛha and Gayā by the Pāla king at the request of *Suvarṇadvīpādhipati Mahārāja Bālaputradeva*, grandson of a *Sailendra* king of *Yava-bhūmi*.) The land was intended for the upkeep of a Buddhist monastery built by the Sailendra king at Nālandā.³ As Yava-bhūmi and Suvarṇadvīpa have been identified with the islands of Java and Sumatra this record is an evidence of intercourse between the lower Ganges valley and the islands of the East Indian Archipelago in the middle of the 9th century. There may have been a regular pilgrim-traffic, possibly by sea, between these islands and the mouths of the Ganges.

v1.c16.92

³ For the Śailendras see *JBRAS*, 1887-89, XVII, Part II, pp. 1-10; *EI*, Vol. XVII, pp. 316 ff. See also in this connection *The Yupa Inscriptions of King Mūlavarman from Koetei* (East Borneo), edited by Dr. Vogel, pp. 202 ff.

v1.c16.93

The following records of Devapāla's reign have so far been discovered:

v1.c16.94

(1) *Monghyr grant.*—Discovered in Monghyr in 1780. Single plate of thick copper written on both sides (28+29 lines). On the top of it is soldered a seal; in the central panel of this is the well-known Sarnath device, the *dharma-cakra*, with two antelopes at the sides. Underneath is the royal name *Śrī-Devapāladevasya*. The inscription opens with a verse in praise of Buddha, and then gives the genealogy of the donor from Gopāla. It was issued from *Śrī-Mudgagiri-samāvāsita-Śrīmaj-jayaskandhāvāra* by *Ps.-P.-Pb.-M.-Śrī-Dharmapāladeva-pādānudhyāta Ps.-P.-Pb.-M.*⁴ *Śrīmad-Devapāla*, and records the gift of Meṣikā-*grāma*, in Krimilā-*Viṣaya* and Śrī-Nagara (mod. Patna district)-*Bhukti*, to the Bhaṭṭa-pravara Vihekarāta Miśra in the year 33 of the king's reign. The *Dūtaka* of the inscription was the son of the donor, *Yuvarāja* Rājyapāla.¹

v1.c16.95

⁴ Henceforth these titles will be represented in abbreviation as follows: *Parama-saugata* = *Ps.*, *Parameśvara* = *P.*, *Paramabhaṭṭāraka* = *Pb.*, *Mahārājādhirāja* = *M.*

v1.c16.96

¹ The plate was first published in 1788 in Vol. I, pp 123 ff. of the *Asiatic Researches*. The inscription then mysteriously disappeared. In 1892 Kielhorn published a text and translation of the record from its lithographic representation in the *Asiatic Researches*. See *IA*, Vol. XXI, pp. 254 ff. This text was published with notes in the *Gauḍalekhamālā*, pp. 33 ff. It was one of the romances of Indian history when the grant was discovered a few years back in Kenwood House in England in the course of some repairs. It has been now edited by Dr. Barnett with an excellent photographic facsimile from the original plate in *EI*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 304 ff.; the grant now belongs to Kenwood Estate.

v1.c16.97

(2) *Nālandā grant.*—Unearthed at Nālandā in 1921. Single plate : 42 lines (obverse), and 24 lines (reverse). The seal is the same as in the Monghyr grant. The introductory portion (first 25 lines) is identical with the same portion of the Monghyr plate. This record was also issued from Mudgagiri, but is posterior to the other record by six years, being dated in year 39. Genealogy same as in the Monghyr grant. It records that Devapāladeva, at the request of *Suvarṇadvīpādhipati Mahārāja-Śrī-V(B)ālaputradeva*, granted five villages, four of which lay in Rājagṛha-*Viṣaya* of Śrīnagara-*Bhukti* while the other lay in Gayā-*Viṣaya*. The grant was made for the upkeep of the monastery built at Nālandā by the said king of Suvarṇadvīpa (Sumatra ?). The endowment is entirely Buddhist. The 2nd side of the plate introduces the *Dūtaka* of the grant, who is referred to as *Dharmādhikāre'smin*.² Śrī-V(B)alavarmā-Vyāghrataṭī-*Maṇḍalādhipati*.³ Then follows an account of Bālaputradeva. We are told that there was a king of Yava-bhūmi who was a *Śailendra-vaṁśatilaka*. He had a son. As Paulomī was to Indra, so was Tārā the *agramahiṣī* to this son. Tārā was the daughter of the great ruler Dharmasetu (Varmasetu ?) of the lunar race (*Rājñaḥ Soma-kulānvayasya* *mahataḥ Dharmasetoḥ*). As the son of Suddhodana was born of Māyā, so was born of her the illustrious Bālaputra. Having realised the transitoriness of wealth and attracted by the excellences of Nālandā he built a *vihāra* in that place. Though the inscription is Buddhist, it is significant that in the last verse a hope is expressed for the continuance of the grant in the following words: "as long as the Ganges has her limbs agitated by the extensive plaited hair of Hara,"'—etc.¹

First 105 of 610 passages. Read on

Linked texts (24)