The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c16.193

Language: English

v1.c16.193.1

It is evident from the above that Mahīpāla I had a long reign. According to Tāranāth, he ruled for 52 years.² The Imadpur image inscriptions show that he reigned at least for 48 years (*c.* 992-1040 A.D.). I have already referred to the arguments advanced to prove that the year 1026 A.D. of the Sarnath inscription was his last year, or the year immediately following his death, as inconclusive.³ It is evident from the number and distribution of his records that Mahīpāla was a successful king. I have drawn attention to the passage in his grants and subsequent inscriptions which give him credit for having recovered his paternal kingdom (*vāhu-darpād anadhikṛta-viluptaṁ rājyam āsādya pitrām*) by killing his enemies in war. Since the earliest inscription of his reign comes from Samataṭa, it has been assumed by certain scholars that before he succeeded in recovering his ancestral dominions, his kingdom was reduced to that portion of Bengal. They find confirmation of their conclusion in V. 11 of the Bangad plate of Mahīpāla, which according to them informs us that Vigrahapāla II, after losing his kingdom, took shelter in the eastern country where water abounds (*deśe prāci pracura-payasi*).¹ Apart from the fact that the inscription in question (No. 1) is an image-inscription which can be moved from place to place, I would point out that verse 11 of the Bangad grant does not bear that interpretation.

v1.c16.193.2

It simply refers to the roaming about of the army of Vigrahapāla from the eastern country to the Maru lands and from the Himalayas to the Malaya country. The distribution of his inscriptions however shows, that, whatever the limits of his ancestral dominions were at the time of his accession, before his 48th year he ruled over Gaya, Patna, and Muzaffarpur districts in Bihar, and possibly over the Tippera district in Bengal. From the composition of the Sarnath inscription, scholars have assumed that even Benares was included in his dominions about 1026 A.D.² His Bangad grant shows his power over Northern Bengal. Mahīpāla therefore can very well be regarded as the second founder of the fortunes of the Pālas. But his attempts to revive Pāla power brought him into conflict with other ambitious sovereigns of India. A MS. of the *Caṇḍakauśika* of Kṣemīśvara, dated 1331 A.D., refers indirectly to a conflict of Mahīpāla with the Karṇātas. From the fact that it compares Mahīpāla with Candragupta and the Karṇātas with the *nava-Nandas*, it can be assumed that the Pāla king successfully repulsed an attempted invasion of his territories by the Cālukyas of Kalyāṇa, who were at this period the rulers of Karṇāta.³ The possibility of another struggle with a western potentate is revealed by a Nepal MS. of the *Rāmāyaṇa*, the colophon of which tells us that it was copied in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1076 (A.D.

v1.c16.193.3

1019), when *Mahārājādhirāja Puṇyāvaloka Somavaṁśodbhava Gauḍadhvaja Śrīmad-Gāṅgeyadeva* was reigning in *Tīra-Bhukti*.¹ Some scholars have identified this Gāṅgeyadeva with the Tripurī Kalacuri Gāṅgeyadeva, the father of Lakṣmī-Karṇa. As his Piawan rock inscription is dated in K.E. 789 ? (1037 A.D.), there is no inherent impossibility in the identification of the two kings.² If they are identified, then we must assume that Gāṅgeyadeva conquered Tirhut and also Benares, which lay between his territories and *Tīra-Bhukti*, some time before 1019 A.D. This conflicts with the interpretation of the Sarnath inscription according to which Mahīpāla was in possession of that city about 1026 A.D. (Unless we now hold that building or repairing of temples in one of the sacred places of Buddhism by a Buddhist king need not necessarily imply his possession of that place,³)we have to agree with Prof. Lévi that this Gāṅgeyadeva was perhaps a member of a local branch of the Kalacuris, for one of whom we have the Kahla (Gorakhpur Dist. U.P.) plates dated in V.S. 1134 and 1135 (A.D. 1077 and 1079).⁴ The only other possible interpretation, if we accept the identification of the *Gauḍadhvaja* Gāṅgeyadeva with the father of Lakṣmī-Karṇa, is to suppose that the latter was defeated some time between A.D. 1019 and 1026 by Mahīpāla, who conquered Benares from the Kalacuri ruler.