The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c16.106

v1.c16.106

The evidence of these records show that like his father Devapāla at least retained his hold on Bihar and North Bengal. As we have already suggested, there is evidence that he wielded greater power than the distribution of his inscriptions would suggest.¹ We have again no means of knowing his exact reign-period. Tāranātha assigns him 48 years, while his inscriptions so far discovered give us his 39th year. Though it is not un-likely that he may have reigned for some time after this, the years *c.* 815-54 A.D. assigned to him in our chronology may be taken as a rough approximation of his reign-period.² The Pāla records are silent about the names of any queen of Devapāla, and mention only one son, the *Yuvarāja Rājyapāla*, who was the *Dūtaka* of the Monghyr grant issued in the 23rd year of his reign. As he is not mentioned in any subsequent Pāla records, it has been usually assumed that he died during the reign of his father.³ As nothing indicates that the next ruler succeeded to the throne peacefully, and, on the contrary, there appears to have been a palace revolution, the arguments applied in the case of Tribhuvanapāla⁴ apply with more force in his case. But if it is to be supposed that he died before his father, I would suggest that the event may have taken place before the 29th year of Devapāla and this would explain the rather unusual procedure of appointing an officer of North Bengal to serve as *Dūtaka* in a grant of land in Bihar, executed in Monghyr. In any case the Pāla inscriptions always represent Vigrahapāla I as the successor of Devapāla. In the Badal *praśasti* king Śūrapāla is placed between Devapāla and Nārāyaṇapāla. Thus it is likely that Vigrahapāla I and Śūrapāla were names of the same person. The relationship of this Vigrahapāla-Śūrapāla with Devapāla has however given rise to considerable differences of opinion. In the *Centenary Review of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* Dr. Hoernle stated : ‘It seems clear from this (Amgachi) grant that Vigrahapāla was not a nephew, but a son of Devapāla; for the pronoun “his son” (*tat-sūnuḥ*) must refer to the nearest preceding noun which is Devapāla. In the Bhāgalpur grant this reference is obscured through the interpolation of an intermediate verse in praise of Jayapāla, which makes it appear as if Vigrahapāla were a son of Jayapāla.’¹ Mr. Maitreya held that, since in both these grants Devapāla is distinctly called Jayapāla's *pūrvaja*, they must be brothers.² Dr. Kielhorn on the other hand expressed the opinion that Vigrahapāla-Śūrapāla was the son of Jayapāla, and the grandson of Vākpāla, the second son of Gopāla I.³ This view seems to be supported by the fact that the names of Vākpāla and Jayapāla are entirely omitted from the inscriptions of Dharmapāla and Devapāla, and regularly appear in the inscriptions of the descendants of Vigrahapāla I, which is explained only by assuming that they were the grandfather and father of that king.⁴ It is also significant that in the inscriptions which follow Vigrahapāla I the victories of Devapāla's reign are mainly ascribed not to Devapāla himself but to Jayapāla, which finds a parallel in the Badal *praśasti*, which ascribes the victories to the ministerial family. But the latter is a private inscription the main object of which was to praise the family of Garga. The praise of Vākpāla and Jayapāla in the official records of Vigrahapāla's successors appears to be meaningless unless we assume that they were specially connected with Vigrahapāla I in the way that Kielhorn has suggested.